These days, due to financial concerns, many couples and families are pursuing the route of uncontested divorce. Families also want to avoid the long drawn out process that can often accompany divorce and the adversarial nature of the proceedings.

In some cases, an uncontested divorce can be a strong option especially if the parties can agree on major issues like division of community property, child custody, and child support. That being said, it is often ill-advised to try to do an uncontested divorce without a lawyer. A San Antonio uncontested divorce lawyer can assist you with processing the paperwork and obtaining a timely divorce without unnecessary delays and additional fees.

975584_broken_heart.jpg

In an uncontested divorce, there is one attorney. The parties have agreed to all if not most of the issues, and the unrepresented party agrees to a waiver of service, which is prepared by the attorney. The waiver of service helps the parties save on processing fees and the other party is given a copy of the divorce petition and given the choice of whether they want notice of any additional hearings. The attorney can also help the parties save on filing fees by petitioning the court for a waiver of fees if the party qualifies based on economic hardship.

In a San Antonio divorce case, many disputes center on whether marital property is separate or community property. Marital property often takes on a strictly community or separate nature, or hybrid of separate and community property. The question as to whether marital property is community, separate, or a hybrid mixture is often answered at the ‘inception of title’ phase. The inception of title is dependent on when the party acquired a right of claim to the property. A party that owned property before the date of marriage would have an inception of title before marriage and would have his or her own separate property.

Property acquired during marriage is classified as community property. There are several exceptions to this general rule such as when the property is bequeathed as a gift or inheritance. Property whose inception of title occurred after the end of marriage is not part of the marital estate. Sometimes property is acquired in another state and would be considered community property. The court also has special rules for property acquired in another state that would be considered separate property.

1324325_lakehouse.jpg

Any property in the possession of a spouse during the dissolution of the marriage is assumed to be community property unless a spouse can show otherwise through clear and convincing evidence. A judge and jury often make decisions as to how property shall be characterized. There are certain situation where due to commingling , it becomes impossible to determine the nature of the marital property, and in such cases, the property is treated as community property. A sale of separate property does not change its inherent nature. Nor does a natural increase or decrease in value change the nature of the property.

In our last blog entry, we discussed basic temperature issues with the Intoxilyzer 5000. The machine possesses a so-called electronic “eye” that searches for alcohol molecules in the breath sample. The data is sent to a microprocessor which then extrapolates the amount of alcohol content based on two hundred ten (210) liters of air. Remember that the basic formula is an alcohol concentration of 0.080 in 100 milliliters of blood which is supposed to correlate to 210 liters of breath – i.e. a BrAC formula of 0.080 g / 210L . Of course, the machine is nowhere near 210 liters and in fact the sampling chamber inside of the machine only fits 81 milliliters of air – less than the size of soda can.

The microprocessor contains a computer program, but the technical supervisor knows nothing about the actual program. CMI, the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 5000, hold the program as a trade secret. When CMI delivers the Intoxylizer to the technical supervisor, the computer program is already on the machine and technical supervisor cannot access the program. Nor is the program ever updated such as we typically expect for GPS or other programs that get internet updates. Once the technical supervisor takes possession of the machine, there is an assumption that the mathematical program used to calculate the breath alcohol concentration is accurate. A San Antonio DWI lawyer would point out to a jury that he cannot employ an independent computer expert to verify the accuracy of the program – that is a distinct advantage for the State and one that should make jurors wonder. If the manufacturer is the only entity that knows anything about the computer code and there can be inherent problems with computers, jurors will wonder.

1171697_a_beer_in_a_pub.jpg

The next key issue is a scientific principle known as retrograde extrapolation. According to Texas DUI law , the DA has to prove the driver was intoxicated at the time of driving. Yet the test on the breath machine reflects a breath alcohol concentration at the time of the breath test, not at the time of driving. Adding up all the time for the actual stop, conducting the field sobriety tests , the arrest, hauling away the driver’s vehicle, transport time to the precinct, reading of Miranda warnings, and the fifteen (15) minute observation period, more often than not at least an hour has passed from the time of driving until administration of the breath test. The passage of time then begs the question as to what was the breath alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

In our last blog entry we discussed mistakes breath test operators make during the administration of a DWI breath test . In this blog entry we will discuss other temperature issues involved with the Intoxylizer which a San Antonio DWI lawyer can exploit to create reasonable doubt.

The basic premise of the Intoxylizer is that its results are based on the average temperature of a person – 98.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet many people’s average temperature vary by a few degrees higher or lower than this number. So theoretically, if the driver’s core base temperature is greater than 98.5 degrees Fahrenheit, then the Intoxilyzer will yield a test result that is greater than the true measure of the breath alcohol concentration (BrAC). More often than not, the operators do not take the driver’s initial temperature and record it so they can make adjustments off the test results.

In fact, if the case is a Bexar County DWI matter and the breath result was taken in the San Antonio Magistrate’s office, there would be a medical professional present at all times who can take the driver’s temperature and it would not be difficult.

In our last blog entry, we discussed the variance on breath test results for the Intoxilyzer 5000 and how a breath test result of .089 should raise the question of reasonable doubt.

The results on breath alcohol concentration can be affected if there is any alcohol in the mouth. The guidelines require a fifteen (15) minute time period of observation to make sure the mouth is cleared of alcohol. In addition, alcohol in the stomach can get into the mouth if the person belches. That is why if at any time a person belches during the fifteen (15) minute period before giving a breath sample, the person must wait another fifteen minutes before giving a sample.

1337577_wine_swirl.jpg

A strong San Antonio DWI lawyer defense tactic is to query the breath test operator as to whether he keeps a log sheet reflecting the beginning of the observation period and whether that time matches with the time listed on the records. Yet more often than not in Bexar county and surrounding counties, there is no real procedure to reflect when the observation period commences.

In our last blog entry, we discussed how an Intoxilyzer 5000 has to detect a minute amount of alcohol in a breath sample without error. A Floresville criminal defense attorney must highlight the weaknesses in the machine’s accuracy.

Specifically, the test results from the machine are + / – 0.010. A test sample can be off by 0.010 under the Texas Administrative Code . We discussed that the test sample should be 0.080 but in reality, the sample can range between 0.070 and 0.090 and still be considered reliable.

The strongest cases are where the breath sample is between 0.080 and 0.089. If the accuracy rating is + / – 0.10, then the breath sample can be off by 0.010 . Thus, a breath sample was 0.087, then theoretically, the true result could very well be 0.077. Theoretically , the State can argue that the accuracy variation of + / – 0.010 means a breath result of 0.088 could be 0.098. However, that type of variation is further evidence that this machine does not possess the precision it claims.

In our last blog entry, we began our discussion of the scientific formulas behind a DWI breath test on the Intoxilyzer 5000 . The machine’s objective is to measure the amount of alcohol in the driver’s breath. It is critical for a New Braunfels criminal defense attorney to highlight the weaknesses.

The underlying weakness of the machine is that it supposed to calculate whether there are 0.080 grams of higher of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Yet the machine does not examine or even hold 210 liters of air. An oil drum containing over 50 gallons holds 210 liters of air. A person’s lung holds about 6 liters of air. In reality the Intoxylizer 5000 only holds eighty (80) or so MILLILITERS of air, the equivalent of a soda can.

A gram of alcohol is comparable to an Equal packet. In reality, the Intoxilyzer is attempting to measure eight (8) one-thousandth of that size. If the formula is 0.080g/210L and the Intoxilyzer can only hold eighty (80) milliliters, then that is the equivalent of .00003 grams of alcohol to be proportionate to 210 liters.

In our recent blog entries, we discussed DWI defense techniques against Field Sobriety tests . Today, we will focus our discussion of Jourdanton DWI criminal defense by examining the Intoxylizer 5000 and a defense against a breath test over the legal limit.

A San Antonio DWI lawyer will have the TX Breath Alcohol Testing Program Operator Manual at his disposal as he prepares to defend against a breath test result from the Intoxilyzer 5000. Many ever-changing factors influence the machine (and the results it spews out), and these conditions will lay the foundation for challenging the accuracy of the breath test.

The Intoxilyzer 5000 simply has too many flaws to be used to prove results beyond a reasonable doubt. Much like a computer or vehicle, the machine is prone to malfunctions and inaccurate, unreliable results due to maintenance, operator error, lack of proper calibration, and simple glitches. Jurors can very well sympathize with the reliability issues associated with the machine especially if they have encountered problems with a computer or car.

In our last blog entry, we discussed weaknesses a San Antonio DWI lawyer could utilize when defending against the Walk and Turn . Today, we will discuss the final Field Sobriety test – the one-leg stand (OLS).

During this test, the driver stands with his feet together and arms at his sides. The police officer relays the instructions which involve lifting one leg six (6) inches off the ground while counting out loud. Under NHTSA regulations , the officer must time the event for thirty (30) seconds, but the officer does not tell the driver the length of the test. The driver is intoxicated if he cannot perform the test for the thirty (30) seconds.

1189552_girl_in_black_clothes_-_balancing.jpg

Interim signs of impairment during the test include swaying, using the arms to balance, hopping, and putting the foot down. A New Braunfels TX DWI lawyer can argue against a video that shows the client hopping or putting his foot on the ground. Perhaps the ground was uneven and a client who catches himself rather than falls is not really impaired. Wind is also a factor that can cause a person to lose balance and the video will often reflect the weather conditions.

In our last blog entry, we began our discussion on effective San Antonio and greater Bexar County DWI defense strategy of the Walk and Turn (WAT).

Normally, even the most sober of drivers will utilize their arms to maintain a semblance of balance when standing with one foot in front of the other , heel to toe, while turning to listen to an officer? It is not a normal starting position, and most officers will reply it is unusual and that some use of the arms is usually necessary to maintain balance.

On the video, based on NHTSA guidelines, an officer will only do 3-4 steps and they usually reply that they are only trained to show three to four steps. Immediately, you can perk up the jury’s attention by pointing out that the officer did not perform the entire test as he had demanded of the driver on the date of arrest.

Contact Information