DWI Tag Archives — Page 17 of 19 — Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog

North Carolina Bank Robber On the Loose

Published on: April 3, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What are the long term effects of being convicted of a crime?”

Police say that a man with a thick Boston accent robbed a bank in Lincolnton, North Carolina this week before fleeing the scene of the robbery in a stolen car. Authorities say that the bank, the Peoples Bank, was knocked over just after they opened for the morning, at around 9:15 a.m.

The robbery took place at a location on Highway 27 West, where they say a white male wearing a t-shirt, hoodie, shorts and tennis shoes walked in and demanded money. According to witnesses, the man walked directly up to a teller and handed the man a note, asking for cash. The man also told the teller to be sure that none of the money contained dye packs, something used by banks to help officers trace and collect stolen money.

In the note, as well as in person, the robber is said to have threatened to shoot the teller if he did not comply. Police say that no weapon was ever displayed and that the teller filled up a bag with an undisclosed amount of money before the man turned and ran.

Police say thanks to quality security camera footage they were able to identify the suspect as 49-year-old Jean Pierre Gendron. The man has several noticeable tattoos, is bald, skinny and does indeed have a thick Boston accent. Lincolnton police investigators say Gendron has an extensive criminal history and is believed to be armed and dangerous.

Underage Drinkers In North Carolina Face Stiff Penalties

Published on: April 1, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What happens if I am convicted of a DUI or DWI in North Carolina?”

In light of pop star Justin Bieber’s recent arrest for drunk driving in Miami, many have begun paying closer attention to local laws concerning underage drinking and driving. The reason is that some were surprised to hear that Bieber had been busted after police found him driving with a blood alcohol level well below the 0.08 percent that many assume is standard.

In Bieber’s case, Florida’s law says that a person under 21 can be arrested and charged with drunk driving if they are found to have a BAC of 0.02 percent or above. This might come as a shock to many people who automatically assume the 0.08 percent applies to all drivers across the board.

Young drivers in North Carolina should realize that a similar law exists in this state which can lead to young people being arrested with far lower levels of alcohol in their system than would be required for drivers over 21. North Carolina’s law is actually even stricter than the one in Florida, with legislators here adopting a zero tolerance approach. That means that any driver under 21 who is found to have any alcohol in his or her blood whatsoever, even something as small as 0.01 percent, could be cited for impaired driving.

The rules can be so strict for young drivers because the state’s law clearly explains that it is illegal for anyone under 21 to consume alcohol except for in several very narrow circumstances. These circumstances include religious reasons, medical requirements or educational purposes (chefs and others that might need to cook with wine).

Though drivers under 21 make up a relatively small share of the overall drivers in the state, only about 10 percent, the account for a disproportionately higher share of all DUI related deaths every year, 14 percent. Given this disparity, legislators have long felt that a strict approach was the best way to ensure everyone’s safety on the roads.

What’s the best/worst case scenario for those arrested for drunk driving in North Carolina?

Published on: March 27, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “How can an attorney help me with my DWI?”

Those busted for drunk driving in North Carolina understandably have a million questions following the arrest. Some common examples include how much will the arrest end up costing, is jail time possible and what impact will the arrest have on your future?

Another one of the most common questions involves a best case/worst case scenario. Drivers often feel better knowing what the range of possible outcomes is in their case. Though nothing is absolute and your particular circumstances will greatly impact the outcome, the following are some good examples of possible best case/worst case scenarios.

The first thing to note is that the law can be surprisingly severe even for first-time offenders. North Carolina’s drunk driving law says that drivers will face fines, possible short jail times or community service, court costs and a suspended license. However, there are a variety of other factors that can ratchet these punishments upward.

Specifically, the law accounts for what are known as “aggravating” and even “grossly aggravating” factors, which can increase the severity of punishments facing first-time offenders. Examples of such aggravating factor include arrests while transporting a minor child, having exceptionally high blood alcohol content or prior drunk driving offenses on your record.

North Carolina Prepares For Possible Change Regarding Jury Trials

Published on: March 25, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Do I need to hire an attorney if I have been falsely accused?”

A public hearing took place earlier this week in Raleigh regarding a possible constitutional amendment in North Carolina that would allow criminal defendants to waive their right to a jury trial. If implemented, the measure would permit anyone except those facing a possible death sentence to choose to waive the right to a jury and instead let a judge hear the case.

Both houses of the General Assembly passed the constitutional amendment last year with almost unanimous support. Before the amendment can be officially implemented, it will first need to be approved by a majority of voters in an election scheduled for the fall.

Those who support the measure say that it offers defendants added choices when preparing their defense and also could save the court system serious money. By allowing for a speedier trial process when defendants believe a jury is not in their best interest, the hope is that everyone can benefit.

Though the measure passed the legislature with wide margins of support, there are some critics to the proposed change. Public defenders have been especially cautious about the measure, saying that they worry about the possibility that a judge or a prosecutor could exert pressure on a defendant to accept a bench trial. The interest of speed and judicial economy might come to outweigh a defendant’s wishes in some cases, a possibility that worries those in the criminal defense world.

Small Time Theft Leads To Big Time Felony Charges

Published on: March 20, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What are the long term effects of being convicted of a crime?”

In a curious case out of Rowan County, North Carolina, a couple is facing serious criminal charges after getting caught stealing a pair of cheap sunglasses. The case should serve as a glaring reminder that even relatively minor crimes like shoplifting can spiral into much bigger issues given the right set of circumstances.

According to the Rowan County Sheriff’s Office, things started going badly for Ana Marie Isenhour and Michael Shane Hooks one evening in late January. The couple, who live together in Gold Hill, NC, were shopping at the Gold Hill Market located on Highway 52.

The clerk at the store says the two were shopping together for some time and actually ended up buying several items, but the clerk noticed that they had picked up a pair of $14.99 sunglasses and never paid for them. The concerned store employee followed the pair to the parking lot and asked to have the sunglasses back. This confrontation quickly soured and the two pulled handguns out of their vehicle and threatened the clerk.

Police say that Hooks was carrying a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber handgun while Isenhour had a .380 semiautomatic handgun. Interestingly, the couple returned to the same market the very next morning to buy gas, this time driving an easily identified vehicle. The owner of the market emerged and insisted that the two leave before he called the cops. Thankfully both drove off without another show of force.

Toe-Sucking Case Hits Close To Home

Published on: March 18, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “The person that called the police doesn’t want to press charges.”

A man from Concord, North Carolina made national headlines when he was arrested for sucking on a woman’s toes in a Lincolnton Walmart. The arrest of Michael Brown was sensational and prompted a flurry of articles in newspapers across the country. Now that Brown is behind bars, he faces serious criminal charges despite the generally silly tone of many articles

Police say that the incident began when Brown walked into the Walmart located on North Generals Boulevard a little after 11 a.m. Shortly after entering the store, Brown approached a female shopper and said that he was a podiatry student. The two struck up a conversation and eventually Brown talked the woman into trying on several pairs of shoes, all with his eager assistance.

At some point during the shoe fitting, Brown is said to have held the woman’s foot, put it up to his mouth and began sucking on her toes. The woman was understandably horrified and says that she believed Brown was a Walmart employee. Brown attempted to smooth things over and offered to pay for the woman’s groceries, but that did not do the trick.

North Carolina Grapples With Outdated Juvenile Justice System

Published on: March 13, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What are the long term effects of being convicted of a crime?”

A recent article in a Colorado newspaper discussed the current movement here in North Carolina to change the state’s laws regarding juvenile criminal offenders. As it stands now, 16 and 17 year olds arrested in North Carolina are automatically treated as adults, rather than children.

Advocates for change note that North Carolina is nearly alone in its harsh treatment of teenage offenders. In fact, New York is the only other state in the country where juvenile offenders in their late teens are automatically treated as adults in the criminal justice system, regardless of the nature of crime that was allegedly committed.

Opponents of the current laws point out that 48 other states have gradually shifted away from such a harsh approach, realizing that locking young people in adult prisons seldom does anyone any good. The problem is that teens who are exposed to such violent surroundings often never receive the kind of rehabilitative care they need and instead end up learning even more dangerous habits from the more experienced criminals they are surrounded by.

For those young people sentenced to adult punishment for their crimes, the experience can be a traumatizing one. Some who have survived discuss incidents of rape, physical violence and intimidation from the other adult male inmates. With an interest in survival, many young offenders gravitate towards the long-term prisoners and learn new tricks, often becoming more adept criminals rather than reforming their ways.

North Carolina Student Jailed For Month After False Arrest

Published on: March 11, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “A past conviction is keeping me from finding work what can I do?”

A terrible recent story out of North Carolina seems to support the idea that no good deed goes unpunished. According to news reports, 20-year-old Lewis James Little, a sophomore at North Carolina Central University, spent nearly a month behind bars after reporting a crime to local police officers who wrongly concluded that he was involved in the matter.

The debacle began last summer when Little and a group of his friends from NCCU were getting together at another person’s home for an evening of hanging out. As they were walking into the house, Little and his friends spotted the body of a 25-year-old in the middle of the street.

Little says he and his friends were alarmed and while many wanted to call the cops, they were afraid at involving themselves in the matter. Little decided he needed to do the right thing and report the dead body, so he called the local police department.

Things started to go bad quickly after officers arrived on the scene when Little says he found himself facing intense questioning and was soon in handcuffs. Police say they thought he played a role in the break-in at a nearby home and that the robbery may have had something to do with the subsequent murder that left 25-year-old Michael Lee dead.

Charlotte Government “Bans The Box”

Published on: March 6, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “I was found not guilty of a charge, but my record still shows the charge?”

In a surprising and welcome move, Charlotte’s city manager, Ron Carlee, has said that the box that asks candidates to disclose their criminal histories will be removed from applications for most city jobs.

The announcement means that Charlotte joins a league of a growing number of cities across the country that has decided to “ban the box.” These cities include Minneapolis, Seattle and, closer to home, Durham. In each case, city governments decided it was not only better for job applicants, but for the city itself to eliminate the question about whether a person has a criminal record.

Opponents of the trend argue that by eliminating the question, it is possible that city government will employ those who pose serious dangers to their co-workers or even the public. These people believe that criminal records should definitively rule applicants out for jobs, seemingly forever.
Thankfully, these critics have not been able to sway the opinions of managers in places like Charlotte. Instead, supporters of “ban the box” efforts have convinced officials that ex-convicts desperately need work and that by eliminating all of those with criminal records from consideration, the city could wind up losing out on talented and qualified applicants.

Supporters point out that a mistake made years or even decades ago should not singlehandedly make a person unemployable for life. By implementing such rigid rules that come along with the box, cities lose out on talented individuals who are often highly qualified and merely looking for a chance to show their skill.

North Carolina Defendant Sent To Jail For Mooning Judge

Published on: March 4, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What am I obligated to do if I’ve been pulled for Drinking and Driving?”

In a case that highlights just how important it is for those facing criminal charges to behave properly while in court and before a judge, news reports indicate that a teen from North Carolina is now facing jail time after he chose to moon a judge that he was unhappy with.

According to witnesses, Jonathan Lee Gaddy, a 19-year-old from Burlington, was in court this past week to face charges related to underage drinking. Though the initial charge was relatively minor, Gaddy managed to make his situation much worse by failing to control his behavior while in front of the judge.

Those in attendance at the time say that Alamance County District Court Judge Jim Roberson asked Gaddy to pull up the waistband of his sweatpants at least two separate times. Judge Roberson was evidently upset that he could see Gaddy’s underpants. Gaddy decided he did not want to pull up his pants and continued ignoring the judge’s direct requests.

On his way out of the courtroom, Gaddy is alleged to have pulled his pants down completely, to below his knees, as he was walking away. Though he never showed any skin, reports indicate that his underwear was entirely exposed.