Swine flu scare disrupts Bucks County Court…

December 23, 2009

Did you hear the one about the Bucks County juror who claimed to have swine flu?

People go to some pretty outrageous extremes to get out of doing things they don't want to do, but in this case, juror DiCicco claims he was looking forward to jury duty and was, in fact, "really curious" about the process.

As you may recall, tensions surrounding any mention of swine flu ran pretty high back in the spring and early summer. Video clips of people in Mexico wearing facemasks were still very fresh in our minds, legions of spring-breakers canceled travel plans, plus there were constant reminders by our local newscasters of the coming pandemic, and, of course, a certain politician declaring railcars and airplanes to be virtual petri dishes filled with swine flu bacteria. People were scared and very cautious.

Then, there's Anthony DiCicco, a 24 year old Jamison, PA resident who was called to report for jury duty on July 13, 2009 at the Bucks County Courthouse in Doylestown. Upon being interviewed by lawyers on both sides of a medical malpractice case, Mr. DiCicco was selected to serve as a juror.

During the lunch break on July 13, Mr. DiCiccio approached a court official, stating that he had just gotten a message from his doctor's office saying test results showed he was sick with swine flu. The news of Mr. DiCiccio's illness was delivered to Judge Waite, the presiding judge in the case on which DiCiccio was serving as a juror. Judge Waite reacted with the declaration of a mistrial and sent the entire jury home, along with the entire jury pool and court personnel because they had all come in contact with the allegedly infected DiCiccio that day.

A fellow juror who observed odd behavior from DiCiccio following the action taken by the judge informed the court that DiCiccio may not have been totally honest about his health issues. Bucks County detectives were assigned to look into the matter of Mr. DiCiccio's specific health claims. Soon after, civil contempt charges were filed against DiCiccio.

As part of their investigation, Bucks County detectives make inquiries into the validity of Mr. DiCiccio's claim of a swine flu diagnosis. The nurse practitioner at the doctor's office from whom DiCicco claimed to have received a message testified at the contempt of court hearing that there had been no swine flu diagnosis issued for DiCiccio and no call made to DiCiccio by their office on July 13.

Not only did Mr. DiCiccio's act of poor judgment cause concern to many he had come in contact with that day and completely disrupt the court's busy schedule, but there is also a monetary cost to Bucks County and both parties involved in the medical malpractice case, which will now have to begin anew.

Mr. DiCiccio's contempt of court case was heard by judge Clyde W. Waite, coincidentally. DiCiccio was found to be in contempt of court for faking a diagnosis of swine flu and was sentenced to serve three days. These days will not be served in jail, however, but rather at the courthouse. Judge Waite ordered Mr. DiCiccio to spend three days in the Doylestown courthouse observing various jury trials.

A unique punishment was handed down by the judge, some would say. Does it fit the crime?


Check our new Understanding Blood Alcohol Content webpage!

December 17, 2009

If you were wondering whether or not to have that final glass of holiday vino, take a look at our new web page on blood alcohol content. This web page will explain the absorption process of alcohol into the blood stream. Its some good information to know if you have to drive home!

Click here: BAC


Will Pennsylvania soon have traffic cameras for speeding?

November 24, 2009

One general mission of the Pennsylvania State Police Department (PSP) and law enforcement organizations throughout the Commonwealth, is to enforce speeding violations in an effort to reduce the overall number of PA car accidents. More specifically, however, the department has also made, and continues to make, a concerted effort to have traffic laws in work zones, especially those traffic laws pertaining to speeding in Pennsylvania, strictly enforced.

In road construction zones in 2008, PSP issued 8,867 traffic citations, 7,359 warnings, and made 105 DUI arrests in Pennsylvania.

According to 2008 PSP and PennDOT records, 125,712 PA car accidents were reported. 1,422 of these Pennsylvania car accidents occurred in work zones and 230 of them in active school zones. As for another 2008 statistic, 25,000 people in Pennsylvania suffered car accident injuries, while 1,468 people were killed in Pennsylvania car accidents. 23 of those 1,468 car accident deaths resulted from car accidents that took place in work zones. 2 of the 23 persons killed were construction zone workers. Of the 230 school zone accidents, there was 1 fatality.

PennDOT separates speed-related car accidents into two types: (1) driving too fast for conditions and (2) speeding violations. Driving too fast for conditions was the prime cause for 23% of all PA work zone car accidents and for 17% of PA work zone car accident fatalities in 2008. Speed was a major factor in only 1% of the PA car accidents and none of the fatalities. In school zone car accidents in 2008, driving too fast for conditions was the root cause for 11% of the accidents; speeding was a factor for 2% of the crashes and the determined cause of the one school zone fatality on record.

Reducing work zone car accidents is a priority for PSP and aggressive work zone speed enforcement is one very important way PSP intend to achieve this goal. But what form is this enforcement going to take? As Pennsylvania law currently stands, automated speed enforcement is not allowed without the presence of an officer. While some Pennsylvania House Transportation Committee members are interested in exploring new legislation allowing the use of automated speed enforcement technology, such as cameras, the Bureau of Patrol for the PA State Police feels this enforcement approach has many flaws.

First, under current PA law, any radar-based camera system for speed enforcement would only be available to State Police (since radar is limited to use by State Police only). It is not the intention of the State Police to oversee enforcement of all active work zones throughout the Commonwealth, so this method falls short of allowing for participation of local law enforcement in the work zone safety endeavor. Enforcement of traffic laws in many work zones within the Commonwealth is conducted by local police.

As for alternative camera-based enforcement systems, they are used in conjunction with speed timing devices that use time/distance calculations to determine the speed of a particular vehicle. The flaw with this approach, argues the PSP, is that the photograph produced only identifies the vehicle itself (by its registration plate), not the person operating the speeding vehicle in the work zone. Pennsylvania law states that an officer issuing a citation to an individual must be able to identify that individual in court as the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

In addition to issuing Pennsylvania speeding tickets, officers also cite motorists for offenses such as aggressive driving and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) in work zones. If camera-based technology were employed as an enforcement method, PSP contend, it would be impossible to effectively enforce these other types of violations. For example, in April and May (2009) in a single work zone in York County, there were 1,157 PA traffic violation citations issued. Moreover, 27 PA DUI arrests and 20 criminal arrests were made in the same work zone, as well as 59 motorists being assisted by police. None of these arrests or the assists would have occurred if cameras were being used as law enforcement tools rather than live officers. Furthermore, those who were driving under the influence (DUI) would have continued to drive, endangering the lives of others on the road.

Lastly, the current proposal by state legislators calls for a fine of $100 for PA speeding tickets in an active work zone and no assessment of points to one's driver's license record. The PSP assert that the proposed fine is considerably less than current work zone fines, since fines in a work zone are automatically doubled. They feel strongly that a reduced fine for speeding, zero points, and receiving a citation in the mail, as opposed to being pulled over by a "real" cop, will not deter drivers at all from aggressively driving through work zones. If speed enforcement technology legislation is passed, State Police claim their goal of vastly reducing the number of Pennsylvania car accidents and fatal car accidents would be seriously compromised, believing that strict "on-site" enforcement methods keep residents of the Commonwealth safer than any other method.

Though the Bureau of Patrol for the Pennsylvania State Police does make some valid points, there is an equally convincing flip side to this argument. There is the strong assertion by several U.S. cities, states, and safety organizations that technology-based traffic law enforcement is very effective in curbing peoples' tendency to speed or drive recklessly when they know there are cameras watching them at lighted intersections, work zones, school zones, etc. The end result being that these technologically patrolled areas are safer for everyone. Some studies have essentially shown that surveillance begets compliance. If that is the case, PSP will realize their goal of reduced Pennsylvania car accidents in work zones. Red light cameras are currently used in 26 states and in more than 400 U.S. cities, with more municipalities looking into this speed enforcement technology every day.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has documented the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing highway speeds and crashes. Are you aware that red light cameras are presently used in the city of Philadelphia? According to a study completed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in January 2007, cameras installed at red lights within the city reduced traffic violations by 96%.

Does the use of cameras promote better driving habits overall? Or only in the areas people know are equipped with surveillance? Collected data and careful study seem to show that traffic cameras are effective. Are these traffic cameras an intrusion into our privacy?


Drunk driver turns herself in to police…

November 18, 2009

On Saturday, October 24, a Clark County, Wisconsin woman did an extraordinary thing: she made a call to 911 and reported herself for drunk driving. In the course of the 911 call, the driver, Mary Strey, told the dispatcher, "somebody's really drunk driving down Granton Road…" The dispatcher asked, "Are you behind them…?", to which Ms. Strey answered, "I am them".

Mary Strey was about 2 miles from home when she made the call. 911 operators heeded her call and dispatched Sheriff's deputies to the scene after they asked her to pull over to the side of the road and turn on her flashers. Deputies found Ms. Strey at the scene and issued her a ticket for OWI (operating while intoxicated). She told them she had been drinking all night long. Breathalyzer test results showed her to have a blood alcohol level of 0.17, nearly double the Wisconsin legal limit.

The county Sheriff's office admits that drunken drivers reporting themselves is rare. That is certainly not surprising, and it makes one wonder if this has ever happened before anywhere in the U.S. Has it happened in Bucks County, PA?


Believe it or not: PA receives 2009 National Road Safety Award

November 11, 2009

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) received high marks from the U.S. Department of Transportation for its impaired driving program. This month U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood presented PennDOT with a 2009 National Road Safety Award.

PennDOT's award winning program educates people on the dangers of driving under the influence (DUI), removes impaired drivers from Pennsylvania road ways, and punishes motorists who are caught driving under the influence (DUI).

In 2008, police in Pennsylvania arrested over 56,000 motorists for DUI. This included 9,100 arrests of PA drivers who were driving under the influence of drugs. There were 12,752 alcohol-related PA car accidents in 2008, which is a 10-year low for the Commonwealth.

As for the educational aspect of the program, PennDOT utilizes district judge outreach, police training in drug recognition, and implementation of technology devices such as Ignition Interlock. Ignition Interlock is a device installed on vehicles to prohibit persons under the influence of alcohol from operating the vehicle. Under current PA law, a person convicted of a second or subsequent DUI offense is required to have an Ignition Interlock device installed on each car they own, lease, or operate for one year following the license suspension period.

In his acceptance of the award, PennDOT Secretary Allen D. Biehler, P.E. stated, "We're honored to have our impaired driving program recognized as one of the national leaders." Biehler stressed the importance of PennDOT's efforts and success in working closely with Pennsylvania's law enforcement branches. In doing so, there has been a great reduction in the number of PA car accidents involving impaired driving.


New Jersey enacts new winter weather safety law.

October 30, 2009

New Jersey has enacted a law which may be the first of its kind in the nation. On October 21, 2009, New Jersey Governor Corzine signed a law that requires all drivers to remove accumulated ice and/or snow from their motor vehicles prior to operating the vehicle on any roadway. This includes vehicles from the smallest compact cars to the largest tractor trailers. Drivers are expected to clean snow off of the roof, hood, trunk and windshield. The law is officially "on the books" but does not go into effect until next year, winter season 2010-2011, giving commercial vehicle owner/operators sufficient time to purchase and install snow removal equipment.

If a police officer spots a driver who has failed to remove snow and/or ice from his or her vehicle, it is likely that driver will be pulled over, especially if the officer sees that the accumulated ice/snow has the potential to harm persons or property. This violation of failing to remove snow/ice from one's vehicle carries with it a cost of $25 - $75. If snow accumulates while driving during a storm, the vehicle/driver would be exempt.

In a situation where snow or ice is dislodged from a non-commercial moving vehicle and strikes another vehicle or pedestrian causing harm or physical damage, the operator of the vehicle faces a fine of $200 - $1,000. In the case of a commercial vehicle dislodging snow or ice and causing damage to another vehicle or person, the owner, operator, and/or lessee of said commercial vehicle is subject to a fine of $500 - $1,500.

In case you are wondering how many points these offenses carry or what effect they will have on auto insurance eligibility, the answer is zero. No motor vehicle points will be assessed.

In the coming months, we all will become more aware of the law as the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety issues its public service campaign to educate the public on the importance of snow and ice removal from exposed surfaces of motor vehicles prior to advancing to the roadways. There are many potential dangers associated with snow and ice falling and flying from moving vehicles, such as chunks of ice hitting and cracking another motorist's windows or windshield, flying snow from vehicles causing blind spots and/or diminished visibility for surrounding drivers, and pedestrians being hit with chards of ice or heavy amounts of accumulated, packed snow. Accumulated snow falling off moving cars has caused many New Jersey car accidents.

The state intends for the fines collected by offenders of this new law to go toward funding the public awareness campaign, as well as the purchase and installation of equipment and technology used in the removal of snow and ice from motor vehicles, especially large trucks.

Laws in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania already exist to punish drivers if ice or snow from their vehicle becomes dislodged and causes injury, and in New Jersey, the law also applies to property damage. New Jersey has decided to take a more preventive measure in protecting people and property with the passing of this most current law. 

A similar law was introduced in Pennsylvania by State Senator Lisa Boscola in 2007. Like New Jersey's new law, this bill proposed fining individuals for failure to remove snow and ice from vehicles before driving them. The bill, however, stalled in committee and has not been reintroduced by Pennsylvania legislators.

This new law may also be just another reason for police officers to pull someone over for driving under the influence (DUI). Due to the many holiday parties, DUIs in Pennsylvania and New Jersey spike during the wintertime. Don't give the police another reason to pull you over…clean your car!


Are you guilty of DWT?

October 13, 2009

With all of the recent study results surfacing on the dangers of "distracted driving", wireless phone industry lobby, CTIA-The Wireless Association, who once opposed bans on texting or talking while driving, has changed its position. In fact, many related interest groups, including The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, are working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration toward making driving while texting illegal.

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) does not favor a nationwide law on the matter. This group finds the current proposals in Congress unpalatable because the proposals include language that requires states to ban driving while texting (DWT) in order to receive federal highway funds. They contend that this is counterproductive at a time when states should be spending on road projects.

Currently, eighteen states and the District of Columbia have laws against texting while driving (DWT). At least half of these states have passed their anti-texting laws within the last year. Undoubtedly, many more states will be following suit.

In late September the U.S. Department of Transportation held a summit on distracted driving. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood shared with participants findings by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which show that nearly 6,000 people died in 2008 in car accidents involving a distracted or inattentive driver, and more than half a million people were injured. 

No one can deny that distracted drivers create a dangerous potential for accidents. Therefore it's comforting to know that so many states have implemented laws banning texting while driving, right? Well, the states' laws are not all the same. What is "distracted driving" - other than a vastly broad term? Though many of us consider drivers who conduct activities such as reading, eating, using cell phone applications, programming an iPod or navigation system, shaving, and/or applying make-up while driving to certainly be distracted, most states' distracted driving laws only address cell phone use (calling and texting).

The New Jersey cell-phone law charges a fine of $100 for the use of a hand held wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle. In Pennsylvania, a law banning any sort of distracted driving has not yet been passed, though Philadelphia's ban on handheld cell phones and texting takes effect November 1st.

What do you think about DWT? Should it be illegal? Can it be enforced?


The unbelievable case of the mistaken substance identity…

September 29, 2009

Mr. Donald May of central Florida was driving home from work when he was stopped by police for having an expired tag. At the time of the traffic stop, Mr. May was chewing on breath mints. Because the police officer thought the white matter in Mr. May's mouth was crack cocaine, he arrested him on drug possession and evidence tampering charges.

The police officer then took some of the mints from Mr. May's mouth and put them in a plastic bag for lab testing. Later, the police officer claimed he field-tested the evidence he took from Mr. May's mouth and it tested positive for drugs. Unable to post bond, Mr. May spent three months in jail waiting for more definitive test results from the state labs.

Whether or not you believe the police officer's claim of drug findings in his field-test results of the mints, you may be interested to know that field tests for drugs are disturbingly inaccurate. Many common items can trigger false positives, including chocolate, soy milk, and natural soaps.

During the three months he was in jail, Mr. May lost his apartment, his car, his personal possessions, and his job. The police took possession of his car as evidence and it ended up being sold at a police auction.

After three months, the police department received a letter from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement with the lab test results: the substance was not cocaine. The substance in Mr. May's mouth truly was breath mints. The state dropped all charges against Mr. May.

Mr. May has filed a lawsuit for false arrest and imprisonment, as well as a federal civil suit against the city. The police officer is no longer employed by the police department.

Does Mr. May have a great case or what?


Reckless Driving tickets in Pennsylvania

September 1, 2009

If you have been charged with Reckless Driving in PA, you will be facing increased auto insurance rates, an expensive fine, and a six month license suspension.

We have created a new webpage regarding Reckless Driving charges in Pennsylvania. If you have been charged with Reckless Driving, click here for more information.

Do not just plead guilty by signing the form from the local District Justice Court. If you do, you will receive an automatic 6-month suspension from PennDot.

It is definitely worth consulting with an experienced Bucks County traffic ticket lawyer if you have been charged with Reckless Driving. Contact us for a free consultation.


Unique alcohol marketing has M.A.D.D. upset…

August 24, 2009

Cherry Hill, NJ's Flying Fish Brewing Co. is proud to be from New Jersey. With that in mind, the company has come up with a unique marketing scheme for some of its brews: naming them in honor of NJ Turnpike exits.

The company was founded in 1995 and is the largest New Jersey-based brewery. With an already popular product associated with its name, the company released its first "Turnpike Exit" brew, Exit 4 American Trippel, in early 2009, and its second release, was due out on July 15, 2009, is Exit 11 Hoppy American Wheat Ale. They plan to continue introducing new exit-themed beers every few months.

Interesting idea? Not everyone thinks so, including MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), whose position is that a deliberate connection is being made to promote drinking and driving. The executive director of the New Jersey chapter of MADD was quoted as saying, "The combination of a roadway and advertising for any kind of a beer doesn't make any kind of sense." Adding, "This is almost a mockery."

Is MADD mad?

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority could be described as being "tolerant" of the brewery's approach to promoting its beer, but they certainly don't endorse it. That is made clear in disclaimers issued by Flying Fish.

Both Flying Fish and MADD seem to have avid supporters in this debate. The one thing they both agree on, according to a quote by Flying Fish's president, is that "… drinking and driving is never an option".

I think this adverting has nothing to do with drinking and driving. I believe Flying Fish Brewing Co. just wanted to show their New Jersey roots. What do you think?



DUI Arrests Up Among Women

August 20, 2009

Nationwide, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, both police and traffic safety organizations are seeing an alarming rise in the number of drunk-driving (DUI – DWI) arrests among women. In Pennsylvania, the offense is known as Driving Under the Influence (DUI), while in New Jersey it is Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).

According to FBI figures, across the U.S. the number of women arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs rose 28.8 per cent from 1998 to 2007. Conversely, the number of men arrested for DUI during that same time period decreased 7.5 percent. While reports show that men still drink more than women and are still responsible for more DUI cases, the disparity is narrowing.

There are three reasons cited for this change: (1) women are driving more due to increased pressure at work and home, often times economic in nature, (2) younger women feel more equal to men and, therefore, behave in unconstrained fashions, and (3) police have become less likely to let women "off the hook".

It is not only the east coast of the United States that struggles with drunk driving matters. In California, women accounted for 18.8 percent of all DUI arrests in 2007, up from 13.5 percent in 1998, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety.

One federal study on women and alcohol defines abusing alcohol as having at least four drinks in a day. This same study shows that in the 10-year period ending in 2002 the overall number of women who admitted to abusing alcohol rose from 1.5 to 2.6 percent. For women aged 30 to 44, however, the number of those abusing alcohol more than doubled, going from 1.5 percent to 3.3 percent in that same 10-year period.

These trends have not gone unnoticed by the federal government. The Transportation Department's annual crackdown on drunk driving begins in late August and will focus on women.

Most of our Bucks County DUI clients still remain males, but there are a significant number of women who we represent. Of the women that Saile & Saile LLP has represented for DUI in Bucks County, PA, most are between the ages of 25 and 45 years old.


Jail time on my first Bucks County DUI offense…really???

August 11, 2009

Most drivers are caught off guard with their first Pennsylvania DUI offense. This is simply because they have not had any experience with the criminal justice system.

The PA DUI penalties are split between three levels for a first offense DUI charge. If your blood alcohol level (B.A.C) is below at 0.099 there is no mandatory jail time for a first offense PA DUI charge. You can still receive jail time in this level if there are aggravating circumstances involved.

The next level of PA DUI penalties involves the B.A.C. level of 0.010 – 0.159. This is what we call the middle range. On a first offense DUI in this middle range, there is a mandatory minimum jail sentence in the Bucks County prison of 48 hours up to six months.

If your first offense PA DUI is in the highest level, B.A.C. 0.160+ there is a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 72 hours in the Bucks County prison up to six months.

If you qualify for the Bucks County A.R.D. (first offender's program) you will avoid jail time. House arrest is not usually given by Bucks County Common Pleas Court judges on a first offense DUI.

Although DUI is a dangerous crime in Pennsylvania, every citizen is presumed innocent under the law and has the right to challenge the evidence including police procedures.


Fatal Bucks County DUI car accident trial ends in the Defendant’s acquittal of criminal charges

August 3, 2009

A Bucks County DUI case ended in an acquittal for Defendant Laurence Thompson of Bensalem, PA on Friday, July 31, 2009 in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. In question throughout the weeklong trial was whether or not Mr. Thompson was the driver of the vehicle in which the Bucks County car accident victim Mary Anne Locicero was killed.

The charges Mr. Thompson faced were homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, and drunk driving. He had asserted from the time of his arrest that he was not driving the car that crashed on Route 13 in Bensalem, PA.

The fatal Bucks County car accident occurred on March 15, 2009 on Route 13 when Mary Anne Locicero's car, traveling at excessive speed, spun across the highway and hit two guardrails. Defense and prosecution experts alike contend that Ms. Locicero was ejected from the car through the passenger side window, but disagree on who was driving the car.

The prosecution argued that Mr. Thompson was driving the car, given the fact that Ms. Locicero was thrown from the passenger's side window. Defense, however, with the aid of their experts' accident reconstruction demonstrations, argued that Ms. Locicero could have been in the driver's seat and propelled, due to impact, across to the passenger's side, where she was forced from the car.

Providing even more uncertainly as to who was driving were the conflicting stories of the witnesses at the scene of the Bensalem car accident and the bouncer who was working at the Bensalem bar where Mr. Thompson had been drinking prior to getting into Ms. Locicero's car. Those who witnessed the car accident reported to police investigators that Mr. Thompson climbed out of the driver's side window after the crash.

In the end, the jury found Mr. Laurence not guilty. If he had been convicted of the crimes with which he was charged, Mr. Thompson could have spent over 10 years in a state prison.


Two kids fall victim to Bucks County drunk driver

July 22, 2009

Two children were seriously injured in the Winder Village neighborhood of Bristol Township earlier this month. Lasandra Williams of Bristol Township is alleged to have been driving under the influence (DUI) when she struck two children with her car. The children, who remain unidentified due to their status as juveniles, were both badly injured with broken bones in their lower extremities, but are expected to survive.

When Bristol police arrived on the scene of the accident they found the boys lying in the street. Police were told by Ms. Williams at the scene that she had struck the children. Upon routine investigation, police learned that Ms. Williams' license had been suspended and that she was uninsured.

Ms. Williams reportedly failed the field sobriety tests which were administered by police at the scene of the crime. She was then transported to Lower Bucks Hospital to have her blood alcohol level tested, and then to local police headquarters to be processed.

Ms. Williams is facing the following Bucks County, PA criminal charges: two counts of aggravated assault while DUI (driving under the influence), which is a second-degree felony carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and two counts of causing an accident with injuries while not properly licensed, which is a third-degree felony that carries a maximum of seven years in prison.



July 20, 2009

Welcome to our first blog entry on our new Bucks County DUI Lawyer Blog. This blog is a continuation of our previous Bucks County DUI law blog with over 80 DUI related blog entries found here.

This law blog will focus on Driving Under the Influence (DUI) issues in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an emphasis on Bucks County PA DUI offenses and procedure. At times we will also post blog entries about New Jersey Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) law.

Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. of Saile & Saile LLP, represents individuals charged with DUI & DWI throughout PA & NJ.

Please visit our DUI website at http://www.buckscountyduilawyers.com/. On this website we offer a free instant law chat feature if you have a burning question that you need quickly answered.

We invite you to post any comments or DUI/DWI related questions on this blog. Please understand that this blog does not give legal advice. Please consult with us in person to receive legal advice for your case.


Follow the Bucks County DUI Lawyers by Email

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP