According to the study, 57 percent of teens admitted to texting while driving. This statistic has not changed significantly in the last few years despite aggressive media campaigns, increased public awareness and celebrity pushed "no texting while driving" contracts. Even the acclaimed TV show "Glee" has highlighted the consequences of texting and driving by featuring an episode where one of the show's stars is texting while driving. She ends up being hit by a truck and severely injured.
]]> April was Distracted Driving Month and many are trying to convince all drivers, including teens, that texting and driving is dangerous. The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation calls texting while driving a "national epidemic" and has called for a nationwide ban on talking or texting while driving any vehicle. Since 2010, Oregon has banned texting while driving for all drivers.Research indicates that texting while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving. However, teens do not think so. The Harris Interactive study indicates that 63 percent of teens agree that they are likely to get into an accident if they regularly text and drive, compared to 83 percent who believe that they will get in an accident if they regularly drink and drive.
However, there is hope. This same survey found that the more parents talked to their teens about texting and driving, the less likely they are to do it. Of those teens who said that they never texted while driving, eight-two percent of them talked to their parents about driving and texting.
Source: USA Today, "Teens still texting while driving, survey says," Larry Copeland, April 10, 2012
]]>Honda Motor Co. has the dubious honor of having the most motor vehicles recalled last year. They had 3.9 million vehicles recalled in 2011. For the industry as a whole, the year marked the lowest number overall recalls since 2008.
In second place, behind Honda was Toyota, with 3.5 million recalls. Toyota is still recovering from the public relations nightmare resulting from the car accidents due to unintended acceleration caused by problems with accelerator pedals and floor mats becoming jammed under the pedals. Toyota recalled more than 10 million vehicles with those problems during 2010-2011.
]]> Ford Motor Co. was number three, with 3.3 million recalls, which was a steep increase from the 581,000 vehicles recalled in 2010.Playing It Safe
A spokesman for Honda was quoted in the Detroit News as saying, "We're playing it safe. We want to make sure we find all of these parts." Honda's recalls were focused on locating a small percentage of defective parts, but because those parts were used in much of their product line, the recall necessitated a large number of vehicles being recalled.
Important To Notice Why, Not Just How Many
It is significant to note the overall decrease in recalls as that indicates better performance by the industry, but the individual manufacturer's numbers may tell little more than that they built the most cars in a given time period.
It is important to pay attention to why vehicles are being recalled. To make it easy to determine if there are any pending recalls against a vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) operates a website, http://www.recalls.gov/nhtsa.html that lists motor vehicles, related equipment, child safety seats and tires. Visiting this site allows consumers to quickly check if their vehicle needs to be serviced.
Source: "NHTSA says Honda led U.S. in 2011 recalls," The Detroit News, 1/6/12
]]>Studies show that texting while driving is very dangerous, maybe even as dangerous as drunk driving. One study found that a texting driver going 55 MPH on a highway typically drives the length of a football field without taking his or her eyes off the phone.
Young people in their 20s are most likely to be in car accidents involving texting while driving, accounting for over 30 percent of crashes, according to recent data. In one survey, half of those between ages 16-24 admitted to the practice.
]]> This is no surprise, as young people are more likely to be overconfident about their ability to multitask. However, unlike other distractions, such as listening to the radio, texting engages the driver manually (hands), visually (eyes), and cognitively (attention), all at once.Scientific studies show that multitasking is basically an illusion, because the human brain cannot actually handle two tasks simultaneously. The best it can do is quickly switch between them. Texting while driving easily overloads the brain, and the brain simply fails to process important information such as road signs and red lights.
Americans - and their representatives in government - recognize the dangers of distracted driving. In recent surveys, nearly 90 percent of respondents agree that texting while driving is dangerous and should be illegal.
Many countries, including Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom, have outlawed the practice. Although many disagree over whether laws should target only teenagers or handheld devices, most U.S. states, including Oregon, have acted.
Source: "Cellphones and distracted driving: What happens when the brain is overloaded? The answer will surprise you," mlive.com, 2/5/12
]]>Vehicles tested by NHTSA receive "extra credit" if they have electronic stability control technologies. NHTSA is also encouraging the use of automatic crash notification systems that notify emergency responders of car accidents as soon as they occur. Beginning with model year 2012, anti-skid technology will be required in all new vehicles.
]]> With "texting while driving" accidents on the rise, NHTSA is also targeting distracted driving. Current long-term studies could lead to new safety requirements. The NHTSA views connected vehicle technology, also called vehicle-to-vehicle communications (V2V), as a long-term key to accident reduction.Accident testing for V2V will begin when consumer testing is complete. The National Academy of Sciences recently recommended that NHTSA also explore the use of accidental acceleration controls and "black boxes" that record crash data. To properly implement these technologies, it encouraged the agency hire more electronic technology experts.
NHTSA officials have said that technologies like V2V could reduce non-impaired driver accidents by 80 percent. While NHTSA encourages automakers to use electronic technologies, consumers will need to understand the new safety systems in their vehicles and automakers will need to ensure that consumers know how these systems operate in their vehicles.
Source: "NHTSA Considers Changes to Five-Star Crash Rating System," Automobilemag.com, 1/11/12
]]>Federal officials have called for auto manufacturers to slow down on implementation of distracting technologies that take attention from the road ahead. But technology has also led to great advances in automobile safety, from vehicle stability control systems to back-up warning systems that tell a driver if a child or obstacle is in a car or truck's path.
]]> Within a few years, drivers will experience new auto technologies that should reduce the frequency of distracted driving accidents:Smart strategies to reduce distracted driving across the country are a welcome advance after more than two decades of steady increases in use of electronic devices by drivers. Travel safety studies have estimated that even hands-free cell phone use creates the same delay in reactions as drunk driving at the legal limit.
Oregon's ban on all texting by drivers is a good start, as is its ban on all cell phone use by novice drivers. When drivers ignore the law and cause accidents, our Portland car accident lawyers can help injury victims explore every legal option for compensation and legal accountability.
Source: "If technology is the problem, can it also help prevent distracted-driving crashes?" mlive.com, 2/5/12
]]>Called high-intensity discharge lights - also called Xenon headlights - these headlights are typically installed on newer makes of vehicles and are available as an after-market product. According to a Boston.com article, these high-intensity lights are 400 percent brighter than headlights available in the early 1990s.
However, it isn't just the high-intensity lights that are brighter than headlights of yesteryear. The typical halogen headlight is 40 to 70 percent brighter than headlights from 20 years ago, says the Boston.com article.
]]> National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations provide specific standards that headlights are to adhere to, including the highest point or horizon level that headlights can be aimed These standards are intended to reduce the amount of glare that oncoming drivers experience, allowing them to still see while meeting other drivers.But this does not mean that headlights cannot aim above this horizon level. Things such as car rattles, potholes, fender-bender accidents, and improperly inflated tires can cause these lights to shine above the horizon level causing glare for oncoming drivers, says Roger Montbleu, owner of a small auto business, according to Boston.com.
Glare can be very dangerous, especially if it causes any sort of temporary blindness in drivers. Drivers temporarily blinded by glare may not see objects in the road or animals or children that may dart into the road.
Other than wearing sunglasses-an option that would not be a wise choice at night-there is not much that most drivers can do to avoid the glare. Experts recommend that drivers keep their windshield clean to reduce glare. Also, when encountering high-intensity lights, look down on the roadway, focusing on the solid lines painted on the sides of the road.
Source: "Headlights a glaring problem for older drivers," Boston.com, 1/29/12
]]>In a nutshell, ORS 20.080 presently allows a plaintiff to demand up to $7,500 in damages. The defendant (insurance company) must respond in no less than 30 days from receipt of a demand. In the event the insurer makes a "lowball" offer, a plaintiff who then elects to litigate their case and beats the offer, either through a verdict or arbitration award, can then assess and collect additional attorney fees from the insurance company. At the conclusion of litigation, attorney fees are usually substantial when calculated at a rate of $200-$350/hour.
Theoretically, ORS 20.080 helps parties avoid costly and time consuming litigation by fostering earlier settlement. A plaintiff is less likely to overreach and the insurance company is more likely to make a "good faith" offer where there is a potential for high attorney fees to be assessed against insurers following litigation.
ORS 20.080 will further benefit plaintiffs in 2012 when the demand limit increases from $7,500 to $10,000. If you have been in a car accident or otherwise been injured, no matter how serious, do not hesitate to contact an experienced personal injury lawyer to handle your case.
]]>Today is Halloween - a time of elevated risk of dog bites. Many children will be venturing out trick-or-treating, walking up to houses they usually don't visit. And many of those houses have dogs.
Children are highly vulnerable to dog attacks. Indeed, fully half of dog bite victims are children under the age of 12. Moreover, 7 out of 10 dog-bite deaths occur among children under 10.
Overall, counting both adults and children, there are about 16 dog bite deaths every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
]]> Of course, dog owners often claim that their pets are harmless and wouldn't bite anyone. Too often, that is merely wishful thinking on the owners; part. It does not conform to the fact that dog bites are a frequent form of personal injury.And it's not as if only pit bulls and Rottweilers and other high-profile breeds are the only ones that bite, either. All types of dogs can bite, even little Chihuahuas.
There are many steps dog owners can take to reduce the risk of dog bites. Those steps start with getting input from veterinarians and other animal care professionals about what type of dog would be appropriate for a given household. One a dog is chosen, it is important to socialize and train it properly. Aggressive behavior toward humans should not be tolerated, especially considering the dog bite statistics cited above.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html
]]>Fortunately, the types of therapy that are available to treat serious and catastrophic injuries continue to improve. One inspiring example is that of Tim Hemmes, a man who was paralyzed in a motorcycle crash seven years ago. Seeking to overcome his spinal cord injury, he is participating in an experimental program involving prosthetic arms controlled by a brain-computer interface.
Doctors and scientists at the University of Pittsburgh wanted to know whether someone with severe spinal cord damage could move an external object using their brain waves - as transmitted to a "virtual arm." The virtual arm is a prosthetic arm linked to brain waves by a computer.
]]> To conduct the experiment, surgeons placed an electrocorticography grid in Hemmes's brain. More specifically, they placed this small chip (the size of a postage stamp) on the motor cortex area of the brain. They then ran wires under the skin from the chip to the shoulders, where it was attached to computer cables.After several weeks of working with the medical research team, Hemmes was able to visualize moving a ball with the robotic arm. Amazingly, he was able to use the arm to complete the ball-moving task.
The scientists want to build on this success by conducting further tests of arm and hand motions. Wireless technology and electrical muscle stimulations devices may also hold out hope for paralyzed people to regain the ability to perform certain movements.
Source: "Moving a Robotic Arm With Just a Thought," PCWorld, 10-14-11
]]>Being convicted of a sex offense has many possible consequences. Jail or prison is only one of them. There is also the possible impact on employment and housing opportunities.
The housing problem is becoming more and more challenging. Many municipalities have ordinances restricting where people on the sex offender registry can live. In Portland, in particular, the effective of the restrictive ordinances often seems like a modern-day form of exile.
And there's the problem of homelessness. If you are on the sex offender registry, you are required to notify law enforcement officials of your address. But how do you do that if you are homeless?
The number of registered sex offenders in Oregon is, in round numbers, 18,000. A substantial segment of that group is homeless, though no one knows exactly how many.
The Oregonian recently profiled one such homeless ex-offender, a 51-year-old man named Robert Corry. He sleeps in a battered 1985 vehicle on a lot in Salem near a cluster of Marion County buildings that include the jail and community supervision offices. He previously parked amid the RVs at a Wal-Mart.
]]> The manager of the Oregon sex offender registry, Vi Beaty, says tracking homeless sex offenders is a national problem. "Nobody really has a good answer for it," Beaty said. "We have people registered under bridges. If they sleep in a parking lot or rest area it would not surprise me."Corry served six years in prison for sex abuse before he was released in 2009.
Source: "Where to Put Oregon's Homeless? Well, the Salem Walmart parking lot is out," The Oregonian, 8-22-11
]]>The case is rather uncontroversial in holding that standing near a stolen car does not give the police probable cause to arrest someone. Nor is there much controversy in the Court's finding that Mr. Hebrard was "arrested" when he was placed in handcuffs without the police having any concerns for their safety.
What is remarkable about this case is that it got this far. The case hinged on whether or not Mr. Hebrard was "stopped" or "arrested" when the police handcuffed him. Oregon law has long defined a "stop" of a person as a "temporary restraint" of that person's liberty or freedom. A police officer can "stop" a person if they have only a "reasonable suspicion" that they have or are about to commit a crime. A stop is supposed to be less intrusive and less restrictive than a full-blown arrest.
A police officer needs to have "probable cause" to make such a full-blown arrest. Probable cause means that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed by the person being arrested.
In today's case the state argued that because Mr. Hebrard was standing in a driveway 20-30 feet from a stolen car that had recently been driven, the police were entitled to arrest him. Alternatively, they argued that because there were three other people with him at the time, their safety was in jeopardy and they could handcuff Mr. Hebrard without actually "arresting" him.
Most people would have a hard time believing they were not under arrest if a police officer put them in handcuffs. Similarly, most people wouldn't think that they could be arrested because they just happened to be standing near to a recently moving stolen car. ( I bet there is on average a stolen car on every city block in some areas of Portland!)
It took a motion to suppress hearing, a trial, and a successful Court of Appeals case for the State of Oregon to figure it out. Such cases are a reminder about how quickly someone can be unlawfully caught up in the criminal justice system. But for the hard work of criminal defense attorneys Mr. Hebrard's conviction would stand.
A happy result for Mr. Hebrard and the rule of law? Not quite. Mr. Hebrard was convicted on September 8, 2008. He was sentenced to serve 26 months in prison to be followed by one year of post prison supervision for the offense which today was thrown out. Along the way his request for a sentence reduction was denied.
]]>While these particular false accusations were put to rest before anyone was arrested or criminally charged in the matter, that is not always the case. Unfortunately, false accusations of rape or other criminal conduct are not always rooted out by the police prior to criminal charges being brought against innocent persons.
While false accusations of rape are no doubt rare - statistical claims of the prevalence of such claims vary widely and are of dubious utility - as demonsrated by this case, they do in fact occur. In the case recently covered in the news, the report was easily refuted. This may not always be the case however. Consider a hypothetical case of false accusations arriving in a private setting between two individuals. Such a case can devolve into a credibility contest between the accuser and the accused. Such cases have resulted in arrest and prosecution.
Oregon's rules of evidence strictly circumscribe the admissibility of certain types of evidence in such cases. For example, presenting evidence of the accuser's past sexual behavior is generally and strictly forbidden. Evidence that the accuser has made other prior false accusations, while generally admissible must meet rigorous standards before being allowed before the jury.
Oregon defense attorneys defending sexual assault cases must be extremely thorough, well versed in the Oregon Evidence code, and prepared to defend a client the system may have already pre-judge based entirely on the untested testimony of the accuser. Clients are often shocked when they are informed of the standard Oregon jury instruction that "the testimony of one witness, if believed, is sufficient to find the defendant guilty." The "if believed" portion is the critical one. That is where an experienced and creative defense attorney can break the case.
]]>There are two major problems with the court's reliance on this proposition: First, it may not be true; Second, if it ever was true, the times they are-a changin' - and it increasingly is becoming less and less accurate.
As to the veracity of the statement and its original underpinnings. The statement seems to have it's origins in a 1988 Court of Appeals case, State v. Slowikoski, 307 Or. 19 (1988). That case however addressed the question of whether a drug-dog sniff of the outside of a storage locker was an unreasonable search for constituional purposes. The sufficiency of the odor of marijuana to supply probable cause to search that locker was never actually before the court.
In 1996, the Oregon Supreme Court then went on to claim in another case that the decision in Slowikoski "implicitly" accepted the proposition that the odor of marijuana alone emanating form the storage locker supplied probable cause to search the locker. (State v. Rein, 324 Or. 178 (1996)) The fact that this was simply not true didn't seem to bother the Court. Ever since, most notably in State v. Derrah, 191 Or. App. 511 (2004) and the recent notation in State v. Dampier, the courts have propogated this error. In fact, the precise issue has never been squarely addressed.
Second, with the rapidly increasing lawful use and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, the odor of marijuana alone is less and less likely every passing day to be indicative of illegal activity. Possession of less than one ounce of marijuan has long been a non-criminal violation in Oregon. Untold numbers of Oregonians possess every day less than one ounce of marijuana without comitting a criminal offense. Additionally, as of July 1, 2011, over 49,000 Oregonians possess medical marijuana cards and over 25,000 people have been designated medical marijuana caregivers.
How long will the Oregon Courts continue to uphold the fallacy that the smell of marijuana alone justifies the arrest or search and seizure of Oregonians and their homes and property? Defense lawyers involved in fighting Oregon marijuana charges need to keep pressing issues such as these.
]]>The case, State of Oregon v. Bonnie Lou Walker, leaves open for decision another day the question of under what circumstances does a warrant to search a private residence for evidence of specific criminal activity allow for a search of the personal effects of "nonresident 'social guests'" who happen to be at the residence when the police serve the warrant.
Ms. Walker, by all accounts a guest at the home being searched, was found in a bedroom at the house being searched. She was handcuffed, searched and taken outside by the police while they searched the home. After some time the police located a purse in the bedroom that they confirmed belonged to her. The police searched her purse and found drug evidence. Based in part on that evidence she was convicted of felony drug possession. She appealed her conviction arguing that the search of her purse violated the Oregon and Federal constitutions.
In upholding the search and her conviction, the Court noted that the validity of this particular type of search was an open question under both the state and federal search and seizure standards. While noting at least five different approaches to this question recognized by other jurisdictions, the Oregon Court dodged the issue entirely. Rather it simply held that because this search was performed under a warrant that it was Ms. Walker's burden to prove that the search was unlawful, and that under any approach she had failed to do so. Thus, even if this was an unlawful search, the court let it stand because Ms. Walker and her lawyers had not produced sufficient evidence for the court to judge.
The decision is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the cavalier manner in which the Court tosses aside the defense contention that because this warrant so plainly did not authorize the search of Ms. Walker's purse, the government should have had to have proven, as it does in all warrantless search cases, that the search was otherwise reasonable and valid. The decision seems to suggest that as long as the police have a warrant to search premises, they may search anyone at those premises for any reason and it will then be up to the defendant to prove the search was unreasonable.
Moreover, in an area of clearly unsettled law, does the Court put too high a burden on the anticipatory abilities of the defense bar. Which of the five, if any, proposed approaches should Ms. Walker's lawyer have prepared for in the trial court? Could the Court not simply have sent the case back to the trial court for further factual findings needed for it to draw a conclusion?
It appears the Court is content to allow such searches to continue whether lawful or not until another case with similar facts winds its way to the Courthouse steps. This might take a few months or a few years. In the interim, it is a cautionary lesson for oregon criminal defense attorneys in bringing Motions to Suppress the fruits of unlawful searches and seizures.
]]>But even for people with a legal medical marijuana card, getting hold of the substance often poses big logistical challenges.
For one thing, there is no certain supply source. A holder of a medical marijuana card can grow, possess and consume his or her own medical marijuana. But there is no dedicated supply system. The state's marijuana program is merely a registration procedure. It does not deliver any marijuana to anyone.
Many would-be users of medical marijuana are very frustrated by this situation. And the number of people affected is significant; over 40,000 patients hold valid medical marijuana cards.
Of course, it would be different if there were dispensaries, as in California. So far, however, Oregon has not allowed them. In November 2010, voters turned down Measure 74, which would have legalized dispensaries. The vote was 58 percent to 42 percent.
]]> So what now?The problem is not just the lack of a dependable supply source for medical marijuana cardholders who are seeking to acquire marijuana legally. It's also the fact that over-zealous law enforcement officers often over-react to activity that is perfectly legal under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.
The debate about dispensaries and other aspects of the law continues, with many questions unresolved.
If you have been charged with a marijuana-related offense, such as possession with intent to distribute, seek experienced legal counsel immediately. You should not have to pay the price for a medical marijuana law that is not written as clearly, or enforced as consistently, as it should be.
Source: "Medical Marijuana: Dispensaries," Oregon Capitol News, 7-27-2011
]]>