Blog

Sign up for The Law Office of Carl M. Ward eNewsLetter
Email Address:

"WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I GET PULLED OVER AND I MIGHT HAVE HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK?"

First, the obvious advice: Don't put yourself in that situation. More than 40,000 Missourians are arrested for DWI each year, and these drunk drivers cause the deaths of nearly 500 of our family members, friends, and fellow citizens. Even if you're lucky enough not to kill yourself or someone else while driving drunk, defending a DWI in court will cost you thousands, if not tens of thousands. No matter how you look at it, drinking and driving just isn't worth it.

WITH THAT SAID… Regardless of the situation you find yourself in, we support and will fight for the protection of your Constitutional rights. However, THE PROTECTION OF YOUR RIGHTS STARTS WITH YOU! If you get stopped for drinking and driving, or for any other reason, it's important that you invoke your Constitutionally-protected rights to remain silent, to speak with an attorney, and to refuse consent to a search of your vehicle. Anything you say or do can AND WILL be used against in court, but your assertion of your rights CANNOT.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS WHEN STOPPED FOR DRINKING AND DRIVING

  1. Missouri law requires that you produce your driver's license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration upon being stopped. Have each of these three items in hand before the officer reaches your vehicle, and provide any and all asked for by the officer.
  2. Missouri law also permits an officer to request that you exit your vehicle, and both walk to and sit in the officer's vehicle. If asked to do so, be aware that the officer will be looking to observe difficulties in your balance, walking, ability to follow his instructions, etc.
  3. Any other tasks that you are requested to perform (including field sobriety tests or blowing into the portable breath test carried by the officer at the scene) or questions that you are asked by the officer, however seemingly innocent they may be, are designed to elicit incriminating evidence to be used against you in a DWI prosecution. In response to any and all such requests or questions, your answer should be: "I WANT TO TALK TO A LAWYER ABOUT MY RIGHTS, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO OR SAY ANYTHING UNTIL I'VE TALKED TO HIM," even if this becomes repetitive.
  4. Then, obviously, do not perform any other tasks, answer any incriminating questions, give consent to a search of your vehicle, or make any other statements at all, even if the officer becomes irritated and threatens to arrest you.
  5. We cannot offer general information on whether or not to blow into the breath-test machine located at the police station, as the best decision is dependent upon your specific situation. However…

    IF YOU'RE ARRESTED FOR DWI, CALL THE LAW OFFICE OF CARL M. WARD IMMEDIATELY!

ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS: REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A PORTABLE BREATH TEST

"I got stopped a couple weeks ago driving home late. I did what you advised and told the cop that I wanted to speak with attorney before answering anything or doing any tests, even though I'd only had a single beer. He got mad and told me that I'd lose my license if I refused a breath test. I can't afford to lose my license, so I went ahead and blew. I blew under, so he let me go, but I'm still curious: Was the cop telling the truth? Would I have lost my license if I refused to blow? Thanks."

— Leroy in Washington, MO

A very interesting question, and one that requires some explanation. To cut to the chase, though: Was the cop lying? Technically, no. Was he misleading? Absolutely.

In Missouri, just as in every other state, driving is considered a privilege, not a right. In exchange for the privilege of receiving your driver's license and driving on Missouri roads, the law establishes that you have given your consent (albeit "implied consent") to submit to a chemical test when requested by a law enforcement officer. As such, the reasoning goes, if you renege on your consent to a chemical test by refusing it, Missouri gets to renege on your driving privilege by suspending your license.

The law allows an officer to request that you submit to two different chemical tests out of four available - blood, breath, saliva, and urine - though quite often only one is requested. Breath tests are, by far, requested by officers most frequently. Once arrested for DWI, a driver is typically transported to the nearest police station, where a large breath test machine is located. This machine is about the size of a typewriter (yes, a typewriter - which you may or may not remember) and sits on a table. This is the breath test machine that, in exchange for your driving privilege, you have consented to submit a breath sample to. So, the officer's statement that you could lose your license if you refused a breath test wasn't technically a lie.

However, in this case, the officer implied that you could lose your license if you refused to submit NOT to a breath test on the large machine at the station, but to the breath test administered at the side of the road with the small device that he carried with him. Though not technically a lie, this statement was terribly misleading.

The small breath test device administered at the side of the road, which is NOT to be confused with the large machine at the state, is called a portable, or preliminary, breath test device - also known as a "PBT." Though still commonly used by officers, Missouri courts have deemed the PBT to be SO INACCURATE in determining blood-alcohol content, that the numeric results are inadmissible in court proceedings. The only value that the PBTs provide to either the officer or the court is in detecting whether or not any alcohol whatsoever is present. For these and other reasons, your refusal to blow into the officer's road-side PBT does NOT affect your driving privileges, and we recommend that you NEVER blow into this PBT - instead responding to such requests, "I want to talk to a lawyer before taking any tests."

(Note: Regarding whether to submit to a breath test on the large breath-test machine located at the police station, which is different from the PBT, we cannot offer general advice. Each individual's situation is unique, and our advice can only be given on a case-by-case basis after being made aware of all the related facts.)

LIMITED LIABILITY BUSINESS ENTITIES

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ("LLC")

What is it?

An LLC is a business entity authorized by Section 347 of the Missouri Revised Statutes and gives owners (known as members) the benefits of a corporation (i.e. limited liability) without many of the headaches (i.e. annual meetings, required officers, board of directors, etc.). In order to create an LLC, the original members must file Article of Organization with the Missouri Secretary of State. The Articles must state a number of things including: the names of the original members, the address of the LLC, the original ownership interest of each member and the name/address of the LLC's registered agent. The registered agent is the person (oftentimes the attorney who created the LLC) who will receive service in the event the LLC is sued. Unlike a corporation, an LLC is not required to file an annual report, elect a board of directors or have an annual meeting.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The first advantage is that an LLC receives limited liability. In order to receive limited liability, it is extremely important that the LLC be treated as a separate legal entity. That means maintaining separate bank accounts, titling vehicles or property of the LLC in the LLC's name, etc. If the LLC is not treated as a separate entity, the LLC's members may lose their limited liability which would entirely defeat the benefit of forming an LLC. Even an individual owner can create an LLC and receive limited liability. Note that "limited liability" is not "no liability." Under certain circumstances, an LLC's members can lose limited liability. As examples, failing to adequately capitalize the LLC could result in loss of limited liability, as could committing fraud.

Second, an LLC has tremendous tax advantages over a general corporation, because the members can elect to be taxed either as a corporation or a partnership. Therefore, although the LLC is a separate legal entity in the eyes of the law, it doesn't have to be taxed separately. This favorable tax rule prevents LLC profits from being taxed twice as with a general corporation.

Third, members maintain tremendous control over the operation of the company. Since most LLCs involve multiple members, it is extremely important for the members to have an agreement (known as an operating agreement). An operating agreement governs every aspect of the LLC's operation, including the rights and obligations of its members. Operating agreements can be reasonably simple or extremely complex, depending on the needs of the members. For example, the operating agreement can create two different classes of members: members and managing members. Members have the right to receive profits and must share losses but have no right to vote on either day-to-day affairs or major changes to the LLC (such as adding/removing a member, changing the operating agreement, etc.). Managing members receive both a financial interest, as well as a voting interest. The operating agreement governs how much voting/financial interest each managing member has (i.e. 1/3, 1/2, etc.).

The main disadvantage to an LLC is that an LLC is more cumbersome than a corporation when the company has a substantial number of owners or ownership changes hands frequently. This is because shareholders are generally free to transfer stock shares without limitation by the corporation. With an LLC, however, most operating agreements place restrictions on the transfer of ownership. Moreover, it is generally easier to issue shares of stock than continuously amend an operating agreement and articles of organization to reflect the addition or removal of members. For companies that are starting out with a small number of owners and transist into a large number of owners, it is possible to convert an LLC into a general corporation.

Conclusion

Whenever a client sits down to speak with me about setting up the client's company, the first thing every client says is, "I want to form a corporation." After discussing the matter further, it almost always turns out the client really wants to form an LLC. In general, an LLC is an excellent form of ownership. In many ways, it is superior to all other forms of ownership. Most of our clients end up selecting the limited liability company.

GENERAL CORPORATION ("CORPORATION")

What is it?

A general corporation is a business entity authorized by Section 351 of the Missouri Revised Statutes and gives owners (known as shareholders) limited liability. In exchange, owners are required to follow a detailed regiment of state requirements, such as holding annual meetings, filing an annual report with the Missouri Secretary of State, appointing officers (a president and treasurer are required), electing a board of directors, etc. The reason this type of entity is called a "general corporation" is because there are technically several different types of corporations, some of which we will discuss later (i.e. close corporation, not-for-profit corporation, s-corporation, etc.).

In a general corporation, the shareholders are the owners. Shareholders' ownership interest is represented by shares of stock. If you own any stock in Wal-Mart or Pepsi then you have a good concept of a general corporation. Believe it or not, you are a "Wal-Mart owner," although your shares of stock probably represent an extremely tiny fraction of available shares. The shareholders must elect a board of directors, which is responsible for selecting officers. The officers govern the day-to-day operations of the corporation. In many corporations, it is common for a person to be a shareholder, member of the board of directors and an officer. This allows the shareholder (an owner) to have some control over all aspects of the company. It is possible for a general corporation to have only one shareholder, and the sole shareholder would be both the treasurer and president.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The biggest advantage to a general corporation is limited liability. The shareholders' assets are generally protected from lawsuits against the corporation. Like an LLC, though, this is only true if the owners treat the corporation as a separate legal entity, properly capitalize the corporation and do not engage in fraudulent behavior.

A second advantage to a general corporation is that it can accommodate a virtually unlimited number of owners. Because shares of stock are issue to issue, sell and buy, transfer of ownership in a corporation is easy.

The major disadvantage to a corporation, and the reason most clients choose an LLC, is the fact that a corporation's profits are taxed twice. That is, the corporation is taxed (as a separate legal entity) and the shareholders are taxed (through capital gains). This means that, in general, every dollar of profit for a corporation is taxed at a higher rate than if the profit was just taxed on a personal tax return.

The second significant disadvantage to a general corporation is the complex legal requirement to create and continue the corporation.

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ("PC")

What is it?

A professional corporation is organized to carry out a specifically authorized profession. Every shareholder in the professional corporation must be licensed to practice a particular profession. The professions that may form professional corporations are: attorneys, accountants, architects, engineers, dentists, physicians, veterinarians, real estate salespeople and registered nurses. In order to set up a PC, the shareholders must file articles of incorporation accompanied by a certificate of licensing for the shareholders (i.e. something from the governing body of the profession certifying that the shareholder is licensed and in good standing). Professional corporations are governed in a similar manner to a general corporation except that all officers (except the secretary) must be members of the profession covered by the PC.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Again, the major advantage to a PC is limited liability. For purposes of most of these professions, however, the shareholders cannot be exempt from malpractice. For example, even though a group of doctors of lawyers forms a PC (or any limited liability entity for that matter), that group is not shielded from being sued personally for malpractice. The group is, however, shielded from most other lawsuits such as breach of contract, slip and fall on company property or accidents involving company employees on company time. Therefore, it is still worth considering limited liability protection. Many lawyers, accountants and doctors choose this type of corporation, because it can be structured like a corporation, but it is specific to the named profession. The disadvantages are also similar to a general corporation.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

What is it?

A limited partnership is a legal entity whereby there are two classes of partners, those who have liability and those that do not have liability. General partners are those partners that take on liability for the actions and debts of the partnership. The general partners are normally the day-to-day managers of the partnership. Limited partners do not take on the obligations of the partnership, but generally are not as involved in management. Although general partners appear to take on significant liability, it is possible for a general partner to be an LLC or corporation, thus reducing liability. Limited partnerships are pass through entities for the purposes of taxation. Therefore, each partner claims profits and losses on his or her personal tax return. There are variations of a limited partnership in Missouri such as a limited partnership, a limited liability partnership and a limited liability limited partnership. The differences are primarily in the method of formation. For example, a general partnership (i.e. one without limited protection) can file paperwork with the Missouri Secretary of State to change to a limited liability partnership. A limited partnership can file paperwork to become a limited liability limited partnership. Since these differences are complicated and generally not helpful to the average business owner, no further discussion of these variations will take place. Additional information can be obtained by contacting our office.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The main advantage of a limited partnership is its attraction to financial investors. Under a limited partnership, investors can be limited "partners" and enjoy the benefits of sharing in profits without taking on any liability. For general partners, obtaining financial investors is a major advantage of a limited partnership. Moreover, since LLCs or corporations could be a "general partner," even general partners can obtain some form of limited liability. Under a limited partnership, it is easy for the general partners to add partners or delete partners without a complete rework of the partnership. The major disadvantage to a limited partnership is that, if not done properly, a general partner may obtain no liability protection at all. Moreover, almost all of the advantages to a limited partnership can be obtained through an LLC, which affords limited liability protection to all members. With that said, due to the ease of adding and subtracting partners, many law and accounting firms choose to be limited partnerships.

CONCLUSION: WHICH SHOULD I CHOOSE?

As you can see, there are advantages and disadvantages to each type of company ownership. The primary similarity is that, no matter what type of limited liability entity you choose, at least some protection is obtained. The moral of the story is that if you are not a limited liability entity now, you should strongly consider becoming one. By working with your attorney and business "partners," the best legal entity can be selected, and your attorney can draft documents to reflect your and your partners' desires and ensure the document is legitimate in the State of Missouri.

BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS: A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION

By Attorney Jeremy D. Hollingshead

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 U.S. 2250 (2010).

In the biggest 5th Amendment case since Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") held, in a 5-4 ruling, that "[i]f the State establishes that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver." The Court's decision in Berghuis has far reaching implications for Missouri DWI law.

In Missouri, police officers generally read the Miranda Warnings directly from page 3 of the Alcohol Influence Report ("AIR") when arresting a subject. The last question on the AIR, following the Warnings, states, "Do you understand the rights I've explained to you?" Nearly all police officers then proceed to ask questions intended to elicit incriminating responses, such as relating to the subject's consumption of alcohol or drugs, impairment, operation of the vehicle, etc. Prior to Berghuis, our firm began challenging this practice in Missouri trial courts, questioning whether a simple acknowledgment of one's rights is sufficient to constitute a valid waiver, as required by Miranda v. Arizona. (A copy of our motion can be found below.) However, with Berghuis, SCOTUS appears to have ended this inquiry.

In Berghuis, Thompkins (the Defendant) was advised of his rights, in compliance with Miranda, and indicated that he understood his rights, but he neither explicitly waived his rights nor stated that he wished to exercise them. Thompkins was then subjected to a nearly-three-hour interrogation regarding a murder, the entire time of which he remained silent. Towards the end of the interrogation, however, Thompkins was asked if he prayed for God to forgive him for the shooting, to which Thompkins answered, "Yes." Thompkins moved to suppress the statement on the grounds that he did not explicitly waive his rights, but the trial court overruled Thompkins' objection. He was ultimately convicted of first degree murder and appealed.

In its ruling, the SCOTUS held:

Silence during an interrogation does not invoke the right to remain silent or to counsel. Only an "unambiguous" and "equivocal" invocation of one's rights is sufficient to end an interrogation; and

  1. A Defendant may "implicitly" waive his or her right to remain silent by making a "knowing and voluntary" statement to police after the Defendant indicates an understanding of his or her rights.
  2. Berghuis effectively requires a subject to explicitly state his/her desire to remain silent and/or request for an attorney. Without such explicit statement, a subject may be forced to endure long periods of custodial interrogation, with any statement made, even after hours of interrogation and silence, constituting an implicit waiver. Clearly, SCOTUS has taken a step in the wrong direction from the Miranda holding.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CUSTODIAL STATEMENTS FOR LACK OF WAIVER OF RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT OR RIGHT TO COUNSEL

COMES NOW Defendant, by and through counsel, and moves this Court to suppress all post-arrest, custodial statements allegedly made by Defendant (oral, written, videotaped, or otherwise recorded) that the State intends to introduce into evidence against Defendant during the trial of this matter, for the reason that said alleged statements were illegally obtained in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and in violation of Sections 10 and 19 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Defendant asserts that the alleged statements were obtained in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in that Defendant did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, or his right to have counsel appointed for him. In support of this Motion, Defendant incorporates by reference the matters contained in Defendant's Suggestions in Support, s set forth below:

DEFENDANT'S SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT

Statement of the Issue

Defendant is charged with driving while intoxicated in violation of RSMo. § 577.010. Following his arrest, he is alleged to have made incriminating statements at the County police station. Trooper read the Miranda warnings to Defendant directly from the Alcohol Influence Report form ("AIR"). Immediately thereafter, he asked Defendant the questions contained on Page 3 of the AIR. At no time did Trooper obtain either an oral or a written waiver from Defendant of his Miranda rights before beginning the interrogation during which Defendant is alleged to have made the incriminating statements, as Defendant's silence after Miranda warnings were given cannot warrant a valid waiver. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475. For purposes of this Motion, the issue is simply this: May a police officer begin the interrogation of an accused prior to a waiver of his rights? Defendant submits that an officer may not, and that Defendant did not waive his rights, so as to enable Trooper to lawfully begin the interrogation.

Burden of Proof

When an accused moves to suppress a statement on the ground it was taken in violation of the Miranda doctrine, the State bears the burden of proving the accused properly waived his rights. State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mo. banc 1990) (cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259 (1991)). The State's burden is to prove, by a "preponderance of the evidence," that the waiver occurred and that, based on the totality of circumstances, it was "voluntary, knowing and intelligent." Powell at 713. "Conflicts in the evidence and the credibility of witnesses are matters for the trial court to resolve." Id.

Applicable Federal and State Constitutional Provisions

"The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'" Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 572 (1987) (citing U.S. Const. amend. V). This privilege "is fully applicable during a period of custodial interrogation." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 460-61. "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163 (1986).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Fifth Amendment privilege applicable to the States. Spring at 572 (citing Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)). Sections 10 and 19 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution contain Missouri's constitutional guarantees of due process and privilege against self-incrimination, respectively. Mo. Const. art. I, §§ 10 and 19.

"Missouri courts analyze issues regarding the privilege against self-incrimination claimed under the Missouri constitution in a manner consistent with analysis of those arising under the federal constitution." State v. Werner, 9 S.W.3d 590, 595 (Mo. banc 2000).

Argument

The Supreme Court has made clear that a waiver is a condition precedent to interrogation, meaning that an accused must be read his Miranda rights, and must waive those rights, before interrogation can begin. The Supreme Court has also determined that the "interrogation" begins with words or actions on the part of police officers, not with the response by an accused to those words or actions. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980). In the present case, there is simply no evidence that Defendant waived his rights, or that Trooper even sought a waiver, prior to the initiation of the interrogation.

In Davis v. United States, the Court explained that [i]f the suspect effectively waives his right ... after receiving the Miranda warnings, law enforcement officers are free to question him." 512 U.S 452, 458 (1994) (emphasis added). Likewise, in Missouri v. Seibert, the Court explained that "failure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of right before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained." 542 U.S. 600, 608 (2004) (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). These rulings can only be understood to mean that a waiver is to occur prior to interrogation, and this Court should follow this well-established "waiver first" rule in this case for several reasons.

First, the "waiver first" rule aligns with the Miranda Court's understanding of the interrogation process. "The circumstances surrounding in-custody interrogation can operate very quickly to overbear the will of one merely made aware of his privileges by his interrogators." Id., 384 U.S. at 469 (emphasis added). To generally prevent the opportunity for this deprivation of rights, the Supreme Court, as discussed previously, has made the decision to follow this rule in subsequent cases, and this Court should as well. See e.g. Davis, 512 U.S 452; Seibert, 542 U.S. 600.

Additionally, "waiver first" provides a bright line that police can easily follow. Spring, 479 U.S. at 577 (lauding "the Miranda rule's important 'virtue of informing police and prosecutors with specificity' as to how a pretrial questioning of a suspect must be conducted"). If investigators are instructed to affirmatively seek a waiver at the outset (and many already are, as discussed below), it will usually be clear whether the accused has waived his rights.

Furthermore, the "waiver first" rule is beneficial because it conforms to the current guidance offered by many leading police-training resources. These manuals have long understood Miranda to require a waiver prior to interrogation, and have instructed law enforcement officials accordingly. For example, Inbau & Reid's Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, cited in Miranda and at least nine other decided cases of the Supreme Court, instructs that "[t]he only time a police interrogation may be conducted of a suspect who is in custody...is after he has received the required warnings and after he has indicated a willingness to answer questions. Once that waiver is given, the police may proceed with the interrogation." Fred E. Inbau et al., Criminal Interrogation & Confessions 491 (4th ed. 2001) (emphasis added). Likewise, a modern handbook for police interrogators instructs police to ask an accused at the outset: "Do you understand each of these rights that I have explained to you? Having these rights in mind, are you willing to waive them and answer my questions?" John A. Stephen et al., Officer's Interrogation Handbook 67-68 (2004). It also advises: "Always ask yourself, 'after giving the warning, did I make sure to secure an affirmative waiver?'" Id. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's handbook is to the same effect. It states the point succinctly: "Once an individual taken into custody has been given the proper Miranda warnings, there is one more requirement before any interrogation. Prior to questioning, the suspect must make a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights under Miranda." Department of Homeland Security, Legal Division Handbook 491 (2009) (emphasis added). Leading training resources, in short, understand the Supreme Court to have meant what it said in Davis and Seibert: Police must "obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning." Seibert, 542 U.S. at 608 (emphasis added).

Clearly, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court should find that because Defendant did not waive his right to remain silent or right to counsel prior to the start of Trooper's custodial interrogation of Defendant, Defendant's constitutionally-protected rights were violated.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order suppressing all statements allegedly made by Defendant during his custodial interrogation, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.

OPTIONAL FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS: The Alphabet, Count-Down, Finger-Count, Rhomberg Balance, and Finger-to-Nose Tests

By Field-Sobriety-Test Instructor Gary W. Lowe

Even though these field sobriety tests have not been scientifically validated, most have been used for many years prior to the development of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ("NHTSA's") Standardized Field Sobriety Tests ("SFSTs") and can still be useful to officers in determining if further investigation is necessary. Officers may use one or several of these tests for a number of reasons. The "pre-exit" tests are often used at sobriety check points or during initial contact with a driver when the odor of intoxicants is present, primarily because they are generally quick, simple, and easy for the officer to administer, easily understood by the subject, and may reduce the amount of time a subject is detained.

Because many people do not understand these optional tests, I thought it might be useful to take a look at how I was trained to administer them and how, during the past 20 plus years, I have trained numerous other officers to administer these tests. The following is an excerpt taken from my personal instructor notes, which I use when teaching the SFST class.

Pre-Exit Tests:

Sample tests that can be administered while the suspect is still inside the vehicle:

  1. Alphabet Test
  2. Count-Down Test
  3. Finger-Count Test

1. Alphabet Test:

  1. Establish that the subject knows and can recite the English Alphabet.
  2. If so, instruct the subject to recite the alphabet, beginning with the letter "E, as in Edward," and stopping after having said the letter "P, as in Paul."
  3. Instruct the subject to only recite it - NOT sing it.
  4. Remind the subject to start with the letter "E, as in Edward," and stop immediately after the letter "P, as in Paul."
  5. Finally, establish that the subject understands.

Watch for clear speech, odor of intoxicants on the breath, proper letter sequence - no missed or repeated letters, and the ability to follow instructions, such as starting with the proper letter and ending with the proper letter.

Notes: In order to maintain some form of standardization, I suggest using the same 12-letter spread each time the test is administered, but each officer should select his/her own letters, rather than just using the letters E to P. If E to P were used by all officers, it would be easy for suspects to learn the test, practice it in advance, and thereby eliminate much of the test's usefulness. Also, it's important to give an example of a word starting with each letter chosen - such as "E, as in Edward" and "P, as in Paul" - to avoid confusion. Otherwise, an "E" may be mistaken for a "C," or a "P" mistaken for a "T."

2. Count-Down Test:

  1. Establish that the subject knows his/her numbers and can count from 1 to 100.
  2. If so, instruct the subject to count out loud, backwards, starting with the number 67 (an odd number) and ending with the number 54 (an even number).

Watch for clear speech, odor of intoxicants on the breath, proper number sequence - no missed or repeated numbers, and the ability to follow instructions, such as starting with the proper number and ending with the proper number.

Notes: I suggest, in order to maintain some form of standardization, that officers use 14 individual digits. However, just as with the alphabet test, each officer should select his/her own numbers to use (preferably starting with an odd number and ending with an even number and avoiding numbers ending in 5 or 0) use these same numbers each time the test is administered.

3. Finger-Count Test:

  1. Demonstrate touching the tip of the thumb to the tip of each finger, in turn, on the same hand, while simultaneously counting "one, two, three, four," then reverse direction on the fingers, simultaneously counting down "four, three, two, one."
  2. Establish that the subject believes he/she can perform this action.
  3. If so, instruct the subject to do this three times as quickly as possible.

Romberg Balance Test:

1. Procedures:

  1. The test requires the subject to attempt to estimate the passage of 30 seconds while standing with his/her feet together, arms down, head tilted back slightly, and eyes closed.
  2. Prior to beginning the test, the subject is instructed to stop after he/she believes that 30 seconds has elapsed, by opening his/her eyes, tilt his/her head back to a normal position, and saying, "Stop."
  3. If the suspect fails to maintain the starting position during the instructions, the officer is to return the subject to the starting position before continuing the instructions. The number of times this occurs is noted in the report.
  4. Finally, the officer records how much time actually elapses from the start of the test until the subject opens his/her eyes. However, if the subject has not stopped after 90 seconds, the test is terminated and so noted in the report.

2. Scoring:

  1. The two major items that are recorded include:
    1. Observations of the subject's swaying:
      1. Front-to-back?
      2. Side-to-side?
      3. Orbital? and
    2. The amount of time that the suspect actually keeps his/her eyes closed.
    1. Other observations to be recorded:
      1. Inability to stand still or steady with his/her feet together;
      2. Body tremors;
      3. Muscle tone:
      4. Normal?
      5. Rigid?
      6. Flaccid?
      7. Any statements made by the subject;
      8. Whether they remembered to say, "Stop," at the end of the test; and
      9. Any other noteworthy observations.

Notes: For SFST Practitioners who are not DREs, I recommend they only use terms such as "noticeably" or "greatly" when documenting sway. Noticeably when the sway is obvious, and greatly when the sway is causing the subject balance issues.

Finger-to-Nose Test:

1. Procedures:

  1. The officer instructs the subject, while demonstrating, to make a fist, rotate the palms forward, and extend the index fingers from the fists, pointing them down toward the ground.
  2. The officer then informs the subject that he/she will be asked to touch the tip of a finger to the tip of his/her nose, according to a series of commands to be given by the officer - i.e. "left, right, left, etc." - to indicate which finger is to be brought to the nose. The officer demonstrates this during the explanation.
  3. Maintaining his/her hands in the manner instructed, the same starting position used for the Romberg Balance Test is described, and the subject is asked to stand in this position.
  4. The suspect is told to keep his/her eyes closed until asked to open them, and that he/she is to return his/her arm immediately to his/her side after each finger reaches his/her nose.
  5. The officer then begins the test, giving the following sequence of commands in this order:
  1. Left
  2. Right
  3. Left
  4. Right
  5. Right
  6. Left

Scoring:

  1. A "map" of the subject's face should be drawn, indicating each point where the subject's finger touched his/her face.
  2. Other observations to be recorded:
  1. Observations of the subject's swaying:
  1. Front-to-back?
  2. Side-to-side?
  3. Orbital?
  1. Body tremors;
  2. Eyelid tremors;
  3. Muscle tone:
  1. Normal?
  2. Rigid?
  3. Flaccid?
  1. Any unusual sounds or statements made by the subject; and
  2. Any other noteworthy observations

Gary W. Lowe has spent his career in the area of impaired-driver detection. As a NHTSA-certified SFST instructor, he has trained thousands of law enforcement officers throughout the state of Missouri in the proper administration and scoring of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, including members of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Missouri Water Patrol, and has also conducted numerous training seminars and written curricula and workbooks for law enforcement on the subject. In addition, Lowe is responsible for the development and implementation of the initial SFST Practitioner and Instructor Recertification Programs used in Missouri and has served both as the Chairman of the Missouri DWI Task Force Committee and as Missouri's State SFST Coordinator. Most recently, Lowe has been reviewing cases as an expert witness in DWI defense cases. Lowe is available to speak with anyone regarding SFSTs, other issues of impairment detection, or a specific DWI case.

Gary W. Lowe 103 Cottonwood Close Street
Warrensburg, Missouri 64093
Phone: (660) 747-2885
Fax: (660) 362-0309
Email: gwlowe66@charter.net

WESLEY V. D.O.R.: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

Attorney Jeremy D. Hollingshead

Wesley v. Dir. of Revenue, 309 S.W.3d 442 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). The Court of Appeals took a step in the right direction on probable cause in DOR license cases when it held in Wesley that the trial court has almost unfettered discretion to believe or disbelieve the testimony of a cross-examined witness.

The Southern District upheld the decision of the trial court where:

  1. The moderate odor of intoxicants was present;
  2. There was an admission to drinking two beers;
  3. Bloodshot and watery eyes were observed;
  4. There was an observation of slurred speech;
  5. The driver nearly fell over as he was exiting his vehicle;
  6. The deputy observed seven clues of impairment on the WAT test;
  7. And the driver, after only nine steps on the WAT test, stated that he was "done," and refused to complete the remainder of the test.

Facts:

A driver was pulled over for operating a vehicle "with nonfunctioning tail lights" near Stockton, Missouri. Upon making contact with the driver, the deputy noted a moderate odor of intoxicants coming from inside the vehicle, an exhibition by the driver of slurred speech and bloodshot and watery eyes. The driver admitted to having consumed two beers, and the deputy stated that the driver had difficulty locating his driver's license even though it was visible to the deputy in the driver's wallet. The deputy testified that, while attempting to exit his vehicle, the driver "opened the door, stepped out, [and] fell back into the open door." Although the deputy administered the HGN test, it was not admitted into evidence due to lack of foundation. On the walk-and-turn test, the deputy testified that he observed seven (out of a possible eight) indicators of impairment. Additionally, after the first nine steps, the driver stopped performing the test and stated, "I'm done."

The driver's case in chief consisted of the testimony of his wife, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the stop. The wife testified that the driver's speech was not actually slurred and that his balance was fine. She further testified that any balance problems observed could be attributed to the "slick-bottomed cowboy boots" that the driver was wearing.

Holding:

The Court of Appeals held that when the facts of a case are contested, it is up to the trial court to determine the weight of the facts and the credibility of any witnesses. The Court further reiterated that it is not necessary to challenge each and every indicia of intoxication. "Contesting a case" simply means attacking the case. It can be done through cross examination, lay witnesses, expert witnesses, or any combination thereof.

Application:

  1. If you want to have a chance at winning, you must try the case. Simply submitting it on the records is NOT trying the case. To "try the case" means to subpoena the officer and, if necessary, present testimony from your own witnesses.
  2. Although judges often think that any ruling in favor of a driver will be overturned on appeal, Wesley provides support to the contrary. As long as the case is contested and the judge's decision is based on a weighing of the testimony and evidence presented (particularly the credibility of any witnesses), the judge's judgment is safe

It Pays to Give Us a Call

Attorney Jeremy D. Hollingshead

Fact: Each year, more than 10 million automobile accidents occur on roadways in the United States.

Fact: As a result of these accidents, nearly 2.5 million people are injured and another nearly 45,000 are killed.

Fact: The economic cost directly resulting from these accidents totals more than $150 billion annually.

Fact: Automobile accident victims and their families receive, on average, 3.5 times more in compensation when they hire an attorney than when they negotiate directly with the insurance company's adjusters on their own, without an attorney.

Insurance companies are in business for one reason - to make money. One way that they do this is by minimizing or altogether preventing your recovery when you or your family member has been injured or killed in an automobile accident. Without an attorney, you have no realistic way to force the insurance company to pay you what you deserve, which is full compensation for all of your losses.

At our law firm, we will fight vigorously to help maximize your recovery. As trial attorneys, we believe that we can achieve better results for you than other attorneys who are unwilling or unable to take your case to trial, should the insurance company refuse to compensate you adequately for your losses.

"What should I do if I've been in an accident?"

Immediately call 9-1-1 to report the accident and any injuries. Next, record the other driver's name, address, phone number, driver's license number, and insurance company and policy number. When doing this, do NOT make any statements admitting fault, including any apology, but DO record any such statements by the other driver. Also, record the name, address, and phone number of any possible witnesses.

If you have any pain AT ALL, regardless of how temporary or insignificant it may seem at the time, seek medical attention as soon as possible. Any compensation for medical damages that you can collect will depend on evidence of the injuries from the accident in your medical records. In addition to seeking medical attention, photograph any evidence of your injuries and damage to your vehicle.

Finally, call us immediately so that we can begin working towards your recovery.

Answering Your Questions …

Attorney Jeremy D. Hollingshead

"About a year ago, I started cleaning the houses of a couple of my friends for a little extra money. From time to time, one of their friends would call me to have their house cleaned too. I decided recently to start an official house-cleaning business, since I keep getting more and more calls to clean houses. I read online that I should incorporate so that I can't be sued personally for something. Is this a good idea?" — Karen R. in Chesterfield, MO

Thanks for your question, Karen. This is an issue that comes up all the time in our business-planning practice, and for good reason - limited liability protection is generally one of the most imporant reasons our clients cite in choosing to create a business entity for the operation of their business - whether already established and growing or a small home-based startup just in the planning phase.

To clear up a common misunderstanding, to "incorporate" specifically means to create a corporation to operate a business. Because there are other business entities available, such as a limited liability company, blindly following general advice to "incorporate" to achieve limited liability is just plain dangerous - which, thankfully, is why you decided to email us with your question.

Two of the most common business entities used for limited liability protection in Missouri are the corporation and the limited liability company, or "LLC." Both entities provided the same protection from liability, but an LLC has the advantage of less strict recordkeeping requirements than a corporation, and, in some cases, more favorable tax consequences. Still, a corporation may be ideal in certain situations, such as when a number of new owners might be added in the near future.

Because the best business entity for you depends on your unique situation, interests, goals, and plan, it's important that you speak with an attorney for a more in-depth consideration of your options so that you can make the best decision. An attorney can also help you create such important documents as an operating agreement, merchant contracts, leases, etc. - documents you may not have even thought you need.

If you or someone you know is considering starting a business, contact us today to help get the business off to the right start!

"What Should I Do if I Get Pulled Over after Having a Couple Drinks?" - Have Your Documents Ready

Attorney Carl M. Ward

As anyone associated with our firm can attest, as soon as people hear in conversation that part of our practice is in criminal defense - or more specifically, DWI defense - their next question is always the same: "What should I do if I get pulled over after having a couple drinks?"

While our firm does not, in any way, condone drunk driving, we still believe it is important that, if you do find yourself pulled over after a glass of wine or two, you understand and protect your rights.

If you're stopped, it's important to have your documents ready when the police officer approaches your vehicle.

Missouri law requires drivers to provide three documents:

  1. Valid driver's license;
  2. Vehicle registration; and
  3. Proof of insurance.

However, the officer who pulled you over is most likely to ask for only two of these three - often "license and insurance."

Why?

In addition to making sure you do, in fact, possess a valid license and insurance, the officer is actually administering a "divided-attention test." A divided-attention test is one requiring you to listen to and follow instructions while performing simple physical movements. Impaired individuals typically have difficulty with tasks requiring their attention to be divided between simply mental and physical exercises.

When the officer asks you for your "license and insurance," he or she is looking to see whether you (a) produce both items requested - nothing more, nothing less, nothing different, and (b) are able to do so without problems, such as fumbling through things in your glove compartment, difficulty getting your license out of your wallet, dropping items, etc.

We understand that you may have trouble with this "divided-attention test" solely out of nervousness from being stopped. As a result, the best thing to do when you're pulled over is to go ahead and get your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance out and in hand before the officer reaches your vehicle.

House Backs Measure that Cracks Down on DWI Offenders

Jeremy Kohler | St. Louis Post-Dispatch

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Police in Missouri will have the authority to extract blood samples from suspected drunk drivers without a warrant if a bill given initial approval Wednesday by the Missouri House becomes law.

The legislation includes several measures that would crack down on the most severely intoxicated drivers and enforce better tracking of prior offenses. It would move more drunken driving cases out of municipal courts and into state courts, where the penalties are more severe. And it would allow counties to create special dockets for DWI defendants, which could help authorities better match problem drunks with services they need.

Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City – the bill's sponsor – told other lawmakers about his cousin, who Stevenson said had four DWIs on his record, to bring attention to the need for the special dockets. "It's an addiction and there needs to be treatment," Stevenson said.

The bill, and another like it in the Senate, were filed in response to a Post-Dispatch investigation last year that found that St. Louis-area police, prosecutors, and judges often fail to punish drunk drivers. Citing the newspaper's findings, Gov. Jay Nixon last year called for dramatic and immediate changes to a system "riddled with loopholes and dark corners." The governor said in an emailed statement Wednesday that the House vote was an "important first step toward DWI reform."

Drunk Pennsylvania Man Tries to Revive Dead Opossum

PUNXSUTAWNEY, Pa. - Police say they charged a Pennsylvania man with public drunkenness after he was seen trying to resuscitate a long-dead opossum along a highway.

State Police Trooper Jamie Levier says several witnesses saw 55-year-old Donald Wolfe, of Brookville, near the animal Thursday along Route 36 in Oliver Township, about 65 miles northeast of Pittsburgh.

The trooper says one person saw Wolfe kneeling before the animal and gesturing as though he were conducting a seance. He says another saw Wolfe attempting to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

Levier says the animal already had been dead a while.

Lawmakers and Judges Say Expanding Drug Courts Will Save Taxpayer Money

Maria Altman | St. Louis Public Radio

ST. LOUIS, Mo. - Missouri has more people in prison than ever before, many of them non-violent offenders. And while the state already has 108 drug and DWI courts some say more are needed. They argue expanding the program would save millions of dollars in the long run. In the midst of Missouri's budget crisis, the special court programs are getting more attention as lawmakers try to close a big budget gap. Five years ago Andrea Barin was arrested for possession of heroin and ecstasy. She was given a choice: jail or drug court. She chose drug court, a two year program that required her to get a job and stay clean.

Today she describes a much different life. "Working full time, school part time, I teach Sunday school on Sundays. My big girl goes to ballet on Saturdays," Barin said. The 28-year old made time this winter to speak to members of the Missouri House. Barin says she wants lawmakers to understand drug courts help create productive citizens, while jail does not. "I could have sat in jail and thought about what I did, or better yet, thought about how I could have done it better without getting caught or gone through the drug court program, which helped save my life," she said. "Sometimes it's better for a kid to clean up the mess than sit in the corner and think about it."

Supreme Court chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr. used his State of the Judiciary Address last month to encourage those at the Capitol to expand the program. But Prices' appeal, in the midst of a budget crunch, was more about dollars and cents. "Perhaps the biggest waste of resources in all of state government is the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders and our mishandling of drug and alcohol offenders," he said. "It is costing us millions of dollars and it is not making a dent in crime."

The chief justice says Missouri spends $233 million a year to incarcerate non-violent offenders or those arrested on drug or DWI charges. And he says when they're released more than 41% are back in prison within two years. By contrast, Price told lawmakers Missouri's drug courts cost one-fourth to one-fifth of what it takes to lock someone up. And just 10% of those who graduate from drug court wind up back in the system.

Those numbers may help sway some traditionally "tough on crime" politicians, as they face gloomy fiscal projections. Republican House member Bryan Stevenson says lawmakers will likely have to shave $500 million to $1 billion in state spending over the next two years. "We're talking about shutting an entire prison, that's the kind of size of cuts we're talking about," Stevenson said. "We can either just close them and turn people loose or we can have a framework and a system whereby they can be monitored when they're released into the community. And that's what we've got to do." Stevenson, the chairman of the House Judiciary committee, has introduced legislation overhauling Missouri's DWI laws. As part of his bill, he's proposed expanding drug and DWI courts to keep people out of jail and even releasing non-violent offenders early if they go through drug treatment while in prison.

But even supporters say it may be tough to get funding for the expansion right away, even if it saves money in the long run. Ann Wilson is the executive director of the Missouri Association of Drug Court Professionals. "I think the bottom line is that there's just no money to spread around, even though I would love to see money going into these programs because I do believe it is a cost savings," she said.

But Wilson says while the money may not be forthcoming this year, she hopes Stevenson's legislation will pass in order to lay the groundwork for the future.

DWI … from Your Own Prescription Drugs?!

Attorney Jeremy D. Hollingshead

Last year, I represented a client in Greene County, Missouri, who was charged with driving while intoxicated - from his own prescription drugs! At the time, he was being treated by a psychiatrist for a number of mental diseases and had been prescribed a laundry list of drugs for anxiety, depression, and psychosis.

One night last year, a concerned citizen saw my client driving erratically down the roadway, almost striking several cars and buildings, and called 9-1-1. When the police responded, they observed my client crossing the centerline of a busy four-lane roadway, almost striking several more objects.

After being pulled over, my client was administered a drug recognition evaluation to determine if he might be impaired by drugs. As part of the evaluation, he was asked to perform nearly a dozen field sobriety tests and was administered a handful of physiological tests. My client performed poorly on each of the tests and was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Once under arrest, he took a urine test, which subsequently revealed the presence of almost a half dozen potentially-impairing drugs, but all of which he had a valid prescription for. However, he was still charged with a DWI.

Most of us know that if you drive under the influence of an illegal drug, such as marijuana or cocaine, you could be charged with a DWI. Many of us also know that if you take someone else's prescription drug and drive, you could be charged with a DWI. What you may not know, however, is that you can be charged with a DWI for driving under the influence of your own prescription drugs. My client in Greene County certainly didn't know this. The law in Missouri is that "a person commits the crime of 'driving while intoxicated' if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition." There is no exception for driving while impaired by your own valid prescription drugs.

Since most of us take potentially-impairing drugs from time-to-time (such as Vicodin, Xanax, or Codeine), what are we supposed to do? We have to drive, right? Wrong. The best advice is to follow the recommendations of your doctor or pharmacist and avoid operating "heavy machinery," which includes your vehicle, after taking any drugs. However, if you really must drive, it is very important that you be familiar with how your prescription drugs affect you and your ability to operate a vehicle before ever getting behind the wheel so that you don't ever do so while impaired. You'd hate to find yourself in the same surprising and unfortunate situation as my Greene County client.

East St. Louis Cop Admits Punching Cuffed Man

Robert Patrick | St. Louis Post-Dispatch

ST. LOUIS, Mo. - An East St. Louis police officer pleaded guilty Tuesday to a misdemeanor federal civil rights charge and admitted punching a handcuffed man in the face in 2006.

Antonio "Tony" McWherter, 47, also admitted that there was not legal justification for hitting the arrestee, identified only as "D.C." The blow knocked the man to the ground and injured him, according to court documents and testimony. McWherter struck the man in the booking area of the East St. Louis police station on Jan. 30, 2006.

McWherter was indicted in July and accused of a felony civil rights charge and lying to the FBI during an investigation of the case. As part of the plea deal, prosecutors will drop those felonies. McWherter agreed to resign and agreed not to seek any job in law enforcement. He also agreed to notify the military that he should not supervise soldiers, detainees or prisoners. McWherter is a Master Sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserve. Under federal sentencing guidelines, McWherter faces a year in prison.

McWherter was a 15-year veteran of the force and the president of East St. Louis Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 126 in 2005-06.

Missouri Texting While Driving Ban Moves One Step Closer to Law

Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Drivers of all ages would be barred from texting while driving under a bill approved by the Missouri Senate. It's already illegal in Missouri for drivers 21 and younger to read, write or send text messages while operating a vehicle. Legislation broadening the ban to cover drivers of all ages cleared the Senate on Thursday. The 34-0 vote sends the measure to the House.

The bill also allows Missouri to issue just one license plate per motor vehicle, with some exceptions.

Are Debt Collectors Hassling You?

Attorney Jeremy D. Hollingshead

Several years ago, I found myself at the mercy of a ruthless and unethical debt collector trying to collect a debt that I didn't owe.

It all began when a regional cell phone provider wasn't able to provide me with coverage as advertised. The company agreed to allow me out of the contract and waive the "early termination fee" of $150. Within days of canceling the contract, I began receiving phone calls from the provider demanding payment of the early termination fee. When I refused, they turned the matter over to a collection agency and had the failure to pay placed on my otherwise-spotless credit report. The collection agency called me late at night, refused to provide any verification that I owed the debt, and threatened to have me put in jail if I did not pay the debt.

Fortunately, I knew that each of these violated the law, so I took detailed notes of these harassing and illegal telephone conversations, sued the debt collector for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and obtained a settlement for nearly 500 times the amount of the debt I supposedly owed.

With my firsthand experience dealing with hassling debt collectors, I have become very passionate about helping people deal with these debt collectors and clean up their credit reports. Below is a summary of the law that debt collectors are required to follow:

Debt collectors cannot:

Debt collectors are required to:

Even if you do, in fact, owe the debt, the law still protects you - the law's goal is to stop harassing and unfair debt collection practices, regardless of whether or not you actually owe money. If your rights are violated by debt collectors, the amount of money you recover for the violation could be enormous. In addition to $1,000 per lawsuit for violating the law, you can also recover damages for emotional trauma, lost economic opportunities, increased interest rates, embarrassment, attorneys' fees, and other costs of pursuing your lawsuit.

If you, or someone you know, are experiencing a problem with a debt collector, and you believe they may be violating the law, contact us immediately. You only have one year, from the date of the violation, to file a lawsuit. For more information, visit: http://www.carlwardlaw.com/fair-debt-collection-practices-act.html.

A Note from The Law Office of Carl M. Ward

By Attorney Carl M. Ward

Dear Friends:

For more than two decades, I have taken great pride in the fact that I put forth the greatest effort possible in each and every case that I handle. While my reputation has largely been attributable to my work in DWI defense over the years, my firm has grown into many other practice areas of law, but still handles each case with the same knowledge, skill, and effort that I always have.

In addition to defending non-violent DWI charges, my firm also handles cases involving other criminal charges, automobile accidents, medical malpractice, personal injury, estate planning, harassment by debt collectors, business planning and litigation, real estate, and worker's compensation. If you need help with any legal problem or matter, contact us and we will happily review your situation. Even if we do not practice in that area of law, we will be able to refer you to an attorney who does.

To help accommodate the growth of the firm, in terms of both clients and areas of law, I have added some wonderful legal professionals to the firm. Currently, there are three attorneys practicing with The Law Office of Carl M. Ward, and a fourth will be joining in a few months. We also recently opened a second office, located in The Sevens Building at 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1740, in Clayton, and have three full-time paralegals and three part-time administrative assistants to support the firm. In addition, we have a new website up and running, with a great deal of information covering a variety of areas of law. Please take a look at www.carlwardlaw.com when you get a chance and let us know what you think.

As The Law Office of Carl M. Ward continues to grow, I hope to continue to inform you of important, interesting, and developing areas of the law that may affect you. I might even entertain you with a lawyer joke or two. And if there is any topic that you would like to hear about, feel free to let us know.

Sincerely,

Carl M. Ward