FR44 insurance requirements

Required liability limits are 100,000 of bodily injury for each person with 300,000 available per accident and 50,000 of property damage per accident. A total combined single limit, i.e. for bodily injury and property damage, of 350,000 also satisfies the requirement. These amounts are ten times what the State considers as being financially responsible for drivers without a DUI.

FR44 insurance cost

The filing (submission) fee for the FR44 form is 15.00 dollars. Other insurance related costs for the DUI driver are significantly more. Additional liability coverage, removal of safe driver discounts, and placement into a less favorable tier (category) with higher premium (rates) can be expected.

FR44 form completion

Insured person information required is name, address, driver license number, and birth date. Insured company information required is name, NAIC code, policy number, FR44 case number, and certification effective date. Additional information indicates which type of two policies is selected. An owner’s policy with year, make model and VIN of all vehicles registered and insured. Or an operator’s policy applicable to any vehicle not registered or titled to the listed person. Authorized representative signature and date prepared completes form FR44.

FR44 filing

The completed form is filed (submitted) to Florida’s Bureau of Financial Responsibility. After June 30, 2009 all insurance companies must report FR44 filings to the state electronically. Companies are required to notify the bureau if an FR44 insurance policy is canceled, terminated, or lapses for any reason.

Miscellaneous FR44 facts

The actual name of the form is the Florida Uniform Financial Responsibility Certificate FR-44. Florida statute 324.023 addresses the FR44 and is applicable after October 1, 2007. Compliance period is for three years. There are no driving restrictions associated with the FR44 filing. Non compliance results in license and vehicle registration suspension. FR44 filing must be on a Florida auto insurance policy. There can not be more than one FR44 or an FR44 and SR22 on the same driver.

About the author:
Clifford J. Schimek is a licensed agent, licensed adjuster, and owner of Florida Auto Plus Insurance agency. http://FloridaFR44.com provides competitive FR44 Florida auto insurance quotes. For addtional related information visit our Florida auto insurance resource guide.

Article Source:

http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Clifford_J_Schimek

Dealing With A Dui

Don’t be fooled when you hear “It’s just a DUI, you can handle it yourself.”

The charge of ‘driving under the influence’ is defined in the California Vehicle Code instead of the California Penal Code. However, it is a criminal charge that carries potential jail time for a first offense and mandatory incarceration for subsequent offenses.

The Department of Motor Vehicles can also suspend your driving privileges. And, should you get caught driving while your license is suspended for a DUI, jail time is mandated.

When pulled over for suspected driving under the influence the officer will gather evidence to establish the probable cause necessary to arrest you for the crime. This will most likely include some testing. Balance and co- ordination tests, commonly called field sobriety tests, and a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test, will most likely be requested by the officer. Although it’s generally a good idea to comply with an officer’s request, many times motorists confronted with this situation are made to believe they ‘must’ comply. Actually, you are not obligated to do so.

Among the field sobriety tests the officer may ask you to perform are those considered “standardized”.

There are three Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) that the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognize as scientific indicators of alcohol impairment.

1. Standing on one foot and balancing;
2. The walk the line and turn test:
3. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (the officer is watching for the involuntary jerking of the eyes, when the eyes slowly track an object).

Each of these “standardized” tests must be explained and administered by the arresting officer accurately in order for the tests’ results to be properly indicative of substance impairment.

A competent criminal defense/DUI lawyer must know the proper administration of these tests for proper assessment of the strength of the case against you and for effective cross-examination of the officer should the matter proceed to trial or a DMV administrative hearing.

A skilled defense attorney, who is most likely NHTSA qualified, can sometimes determine just from the face of the police report that the officer is not NHTSA qualified based on the recitation of his/her administration of the tests.
1000
Only an experienced defense attorney would notice this.

Upon an arrest for DUI, you are obligated to take either a blood or breath test (urine if suspected of driving under the influence of drugs). Further, you will most likely be jailed at least to “sleep it off”. Your vehicle may also be impounded.

The arresting officer will also take your license and issue you a temporary paper license, which is valid only for 30 days unless you take action to contest the DMV’s suspension of your driving privileges.

The DMV action for suspension is independent of the criminal case and is triggered simply by the arresting officer’s declaration that he/she had probable cause to arrest you for driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or greater. It is possible to get your DUI criminal matter dismissed or even achieve a “no filing” decision by the prosecuting agency, but still suffer the suspension from DMV. It is therefore imperative to simultaneously defend both the criminal and administrative actions.

During the litigation of both your criminal and administrative cases there are many items of discovery a skilled criminal defense lawyer knows to obtain. These attorneys also know what any given DUI arrest is worth based on the specific facts of the particular case. Plus, they know how to successfully contest the DMV’s suspension of your driving privileges.

I encourage you not to ‘go it alone.’ It’s important to have a competent defense lawyer to guard your rights; one who specifically knows DUI law and the pitfalls.

By: Berry-Jacoby

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Angela Berry-Jacoby has been practicing exclusively criminal law, including the defense of DUI/DWI’s, for her entire career. She is NHTSA qualified, having completed the 36-hour course. She continues to successfully defend DUI’s in court and through the administrative process.

“I am dedicated to guarding your rights and protecting your interests and liberty when you are arrested or the focus of a criminal investigation.”

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Legal Articles Via RSS!
Additional Articles From – Home | Reference & Education | Legal

OsmoPrep Kidney Damage
Minnesota Workers Compensation
1000
Lawyer – Dare to Speak
What Does a Tampa Criminal Attorney Cost?
Understanding Miranda
Power Of Attorney: 6 Factors You Should Consider When Nominating the Best Agent
Report Identity Theft Now
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators
Why You Should Speak With a Bradenton Attorney
Inteligator Review
Various types of car accident claims
The Rise of False Marking Litigation
7 Vital Questions To Ask Before Hiring Your Next Lawyer
7 Critical Questions To Ask Before Hiring Your Attorney
Depression and Social Security Disability Benefits
Heart Disease and Social Security Disability Benefits

Arrested For Dui – What Should I Do?

If you find yourself arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) in the State of Arizona, and you have submitted to a breath, blood, or urine test, and the results of the test reveal a blood/breath alcohol result of .08% or higher, or you have refused these tests, you can expect to be involved in two separate legal proceedings.

1. A criminal proceeding in court
2. A civil proceeding with the Department of Motor Vehicles (MVD) and the likely suspension of your driver license.

These two proceedings are mutually exclusive; the outcome of one will not affect the other. You could win both matters or lose both matters. How the MVD driver license hearing is handled is extremely important.

Your DUI arrest begins your criminal proceeding. The consequences of this — plea of guilty, or a verdict of guilty following a jury or bench trial — could result in mandatory jail time, fines, fees and assessments, supervised or unsupervised probation, as well as a criminal record. The civil proceeding is conducted before an administrative hearing officer at the MVD. This proceeding deals with a possible suspension of your driver’s license, or if from out of state, your privilege to drive in Arizona. The arresting police officer will serve you with a “Notice of Suspension.” If you have been arrested in Arizona for DUI and you take a breath, blood or urine test, and the results measured a alcohol concentration of .08% or more within 2 hours of driving, or you refuse to take the blood, breath or other chemical test, the arresting police will serve you with a 90 day driver license suspension notice, or in the case of refusal, a 12 month driver license or driving privilege suspension. The police should give you two copies of this form.

If your test results indicate a result of .08% or higher, the police will seize your Arizona driver license, and issue you a temporary license which is valid for 15 days, or, if you request a hearing within the 15 day window, until the hearing is conducted and the outcome determined. Since the police confiscated your driver license, the yellow copy of the suspension notice is your temporary driver license.

If you are from out of state, the police cannot sei
1000
ze your driver license. They will serve you with a notice of suspension of your privilege to drive in Arizona. The suspension will take effect 15 days after service unless you request a hearing within the 15 days. If a hearing is requested, your privilege to drive in Arizona will not be suspended until the hearing is conducted and the outcome determined.

If you refused to take the breath, blood or urine test, the police will serve you a notice of a 12-month suspension of your driver license, or privilege to drive if you are from out of state. This suspension becomes effective 15 days from the date of service unless you request a hearing. If a hearing is requested your driver license or privilege to drive in Arizona will not be suspended until the hearing is conducted and the outcome determined. If your refused to take a breath, blood or urine test, it is likely that the police obtained a search warrant and obtained your blood anyway. If this is the case, your driver license or privilege to drive will still be suspended for 12 months even though the police obtained your blood through the use of a search warrant.

A request for hearing must be submitted in writing to the MVD. Generally, the pink copy of suspension form, furnished by the police, is used to request this hearing. It is important to fill out the information completely and accurately on the back of the pink form. You must check the box indicating you are requesting an Administrative Hearing and mail it, within 15 days of service to you by the police, to: Arizona Department of Transportation, Executive Hearing Office, Mail Drop 507M, P.O. Box 2100, Phoenix, AZ 85001-2100. Do not select Summary Review; this will not get you a hearing, but merely a review of the paperwork submitted by the police.

In the criminal case, if you plead guilty to the charge of DUI, or if you are found guilty, you will be sentenced in accordance within the present Arizona DUI sentencing guidelines. When the State receives notification of the verdict, your driver license will be suspended for 90 days. However, if you are a first offender, or you have had no DUI convictions within the past five years, and if you took the breath, blood or other required test, and if you have been found guilty in the criminal proceeding, or you feel that such a result is likely, then you may wish to agree to a suspension of your driver license prior to or at the MVD hearing.

Agreeing to the suspension will entitle you to a 60 day restricted driving permit following a 30 day suspension. The suspension is still classified as a 90 day suspension. To obtain the restricted driving permit, you must apply at a local MVD office following the first 30 days of the suspension. Agreeing to the suspension will generally resolve the civil proceeding sooner and oftentimes well before the resolution of your Criminal matter in court. This is advantageous as you get the suspension over with sooner and under less onerous circumstances. Agreeing to the suspension will generally result in no further suspension of your driver license if you later plead or are found guilty of your DUI in court. In the case of a stipulated suspension from MVD, there will be no requirement that you post proof of Financial Responsibility before your Arizona driver license or privilege is reinstated. Agreeing to the suspension will allow you to select the day you want your suspension to begin, so long as the suspension start date is within 45 days of your MVD hearing date. This allows flexibility in arranging transportation to work or school during the initial 30 days of the suspension. NOTE: If you request a hearing and actually go through with it and lose, the only difference is that your will not be able to choose the day the suspension begins. You should still be eligible for the 30 day driver license suspension followed by the 60 day restricted driving permit.

If you agree to the suspension, you do not get a hearing with the administrative law judge. You do not get to challenge th
1000
e police officers or contest the evidence in the civil hearing. Sometimes this hearing may be important to gather critical evidence in your DUI case. However, this decision should not be made without first discussing your DUI case and individual circumstances with an experienced DUI defense attorney.

If you have the Administrative Hearing and win, and later lose your DUI case, either through a plea or finding of guilty at trial, MVD will suspend your driver license for 90 consecutive days. There is no eligibility for a restricted driving permit following the first 30 days of the suspension. Further, if you are convicted either through a plea or finding of guilty in court you will be required to provide proof of financial responsibility (insurance) for three years by filing with the State of Arizona either a $40,000 cash deposit, or Certificates of Deposit (CD’s) totaling $40,000 or a Certificate of Insurance (SR22). This Financial Responsibility requirement could have significant cost implications for you, depending upon your selection of acceptable Financial Responsibility filings and/or your insurance carrier’s underwriting requirements.

By: Cooper Hill

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Dui11.com
Arizona Breathalyzer Install Reviews

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Current Events Articles Via RSS!
Additional Articles From – Home | Politics | Current Events

A Step-By-Step information to Obama Loan Modification and Mortgage Refinance Program
Debt Bailouts For Consumers – How Obama Makes Debt Bailouts For Consumers Available
Senate Passes Healthcare – Victory with no Honor
Why Bankers Don’t Deserve Bonuses!
Hannity Discussion with 9/11 Families – We Are Listening New York
US Immigration Reform Debate
The Status of the American Woman in 2009
Prophecy 2010 – America Approaches the Fork in the Road
The Growth Of Tea Parties See No End In Sight
Bounty Hunter Metal Detector For All Your Treasure Hunting Needs

Though not expressly stated in VC ǧ13353(c)(2) or 13557(b)(2)(B), other statutes and case authority establish that what is actually required in a DMV administrative per se hearing as a result of a California DUI arrest is proof that the person was “lawfully” arrested. (See, VC §23612(a); Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 C3d 753, 280 CR 745; Gikas v. Zolin (1993) 6 C4th 841, 25 CR2d 500; and Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 C4th 448, 65 CR2d 860.)

A. What Constitutes an Arrest?

An officer’s use of “magic words” is not the sole basis for determining whether an arrest has occurred—the trier of fact must look to the essential elements of custody, Ormonde v. DMV (1981) 117 CA3d 889, 173 CR 79, and distinguish between a temporary detention and a formal arrest. (See People v. Freund (1975) 48 CA3d 49, 119 CR 762 – defendants arrested when they were placed in the back of a patrol car while police obtained a search warrant, even though officer said arrest took place after the search).

Where an arrest does take place, the timing of it is determined by looking to the essential elements of taking the arrestee into custody and actual restraint or submission to custody. (See, People v. Parker (1978) 85 CA3d 439, 443 and Green v. DMV (1977) 68 CA3d 536.)

B. Penal Code §836

Application of PC §836 to drunk driving cases nearly always involves a question of whether or not the defendant’s activities witnessed by the arresting officer (or other appropriate person) amounted to the act of “driving” as it is defined for these purposes.

As for what acts constitute “driving,” the California Supreme Court cleared up a lot of confusion with the decision in Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 C3d 753, 280 CR 745, holding that proof of “driving,” in the presence of the arresting officer, requires proof that the arresting officer witnessed volitional movement of the vehicle by the defendant. Thus, the Supreme Court held that if the vehicle isn’t observed moving, i.e., rolling, then it isn’t being driven. Sister state statutes generally prohibit “driving” or “operating” a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and some prohibit both (e.g., Florida). In order to operate a motor vehicle one does not have to actually move the car. California, however, has a “driving” only statute, and as Mercer points out, this requires actual movement of the vehicle.

C. Circumstantial Evidence of Driving—Arrest Illegal

Arrest Illegal: The continuing validity of several presence-by-circumstantial-evidence decisions is in doubt in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mercer, wherein the court said:

Because Penal Code section 836, subdivision 1, provides that a warrantless misdemeanor arrest is permissible only if a public offense occurs in the arresting officer’s “presence,” and because the officer in this case did not see Mercer’s vehicle move, we conclude Mercer was not “lawfully arrested” for a violation of section 23152(a) and thus cannot be subjected to the license revocation provisions of sections 23157 and 13353 as presently written.

In Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 C3d 753, 280 CR 745, the court said:

We emphasize at the outset the narrow scope of our inquiry and holding. We do not hold that observed movement of a vehicle is necessary to support a conviction for “drunk driving” under §23152. The lower courts have routinely upheld such convictions in the absence of evidence of observed movement of a vehicle. [Citation.] Nothing in this opinion calls in question the holdings of these cases.

Presumably, this situation (no presence at offense but charges filed anyway) might come about where no one was present for the offense and the respondent was arrested later on a warrant.

D. Cops and Private Citizens

Freeman v. DMV (1969) 70 C2d 235, 74 CR 259, also made it clear that a misdemeanor arrest is legal under PC. §836, so long as the offense occurred in the presence of someone, even a private citizen, and so long as that person either makes a citizen’s arrest, or tries to, or detains the offender until police arrive. The private citizen has to do more than just call the police and hang around to tell them what happened. The Freeman Court said, at page 238:

In People v. Sjosten, 262 CA2d 539, 68 CR 832 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1968), rev. den., a citizen observed the defendant prowling in the night time and called the police, who thereupon arrested the defendant. After holding that the citizen had the right to make an arrest under §837, subdivision 1, of the Penal Code, [footnote quoting language of section] the Court held that the arrest made by the officer was valid, stating at page 544:

As to the delegation of her authority to another person, §839 of the Penal Code provides: “Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.” This statute impliedly authorizes the delegation of the physical act of taking an offender into custody.

In People v. Harris, (1967) 256 CA2d 455, 63 CR 849, a citizen, who had observed the defendant commit a misdemeanor “hit-run” violation, pursued the defendant and detained him while another person went for the police. After the defendant was delivered to a police officer, the latter informed him that he was under arrest for the “hit-run” violation. In discussing the effect of the police officer’s assuming custody of the defendant after his detention by the citizen, the Court of Appeal stated: “An arrest is more than a transient momentary incident. It continues through a transfer of custody of the accused from a citizen to a peace officer.” (Harris, at p. 459-460.)

Similarly, the arrest made by CHP officer __________ in this case was a “transient momentary incident,” which, evidently, had its beginning in the action taken by the officer when he received some dispatch call regarding a certain driver. In other words, the initial detention and subsequent arrest by officer ___________ was based upon nothing other than some dispatch call to the officer.

Likewise, in People v. Walker, 203 CA2d 552, 21 CR 692, the arresting officer gave the defendant some sobriety tests and concluded he was under the influence of alcohol. The officer had not seen the defendant commit the alleged offense of drunk driving, and the arrest was therefore determined to be unlawful. Other persons at the scene told the officer that the defendant’s car had been weaving from one side of the road to the other before it collided with a parked car and came to a stop; but it does not appear that anyone had sought to make a citizen’s arrest or detain the offender until the police arrived or, as occurred in the present case, that another officer had witnessed the offender’s actions and “stopped” him. In direct response to the holding in Freeman, police frequently have the citizen request the arrest, and do so in writing.

In Padilla v. Meese (1986) 184 CA3d 1022, 229 CR 310, an implied consent hearing case, an agricultural inspection station attendant made a legal citizen’s arrest for drunk driving in his presence. The police officer merely took the defendant into custody for him.

In Johanson v. DMV (1995) 36 CA4th 1209, 43 CR2d 42, a citizen’s drunk driving arrest was found legal even though the citizen hadn’t explicitly stated that the arrest was for drunk driving. In People v. Campbell (1972) 27 CA3d 849, 104 CR 118, the Court said:

A private person may arrest another for “a public offense committed or attempted in his presence” (Pen. C. §837). The term “public offense” includes misdemeanors (Pen. C. ǧ15 and 17; Burks v. U.S., 287 F.2d 117; People v. Sjosten , 262 Cal.App.2d 539, 543, 68 Cal.Rptr. 832) and the person making the arrest may summon others to aid him in the arrest (Pen. C. §839). Although there was evidence that Greenwood himself took defendant into custody, Greenwood also had the right to delegate “the physical act of taking an offender into custody” to the other persons summoned, Officer Johnson and Mr. Frazier (People v. Sjosten, supra, p. 544; People v. Wolfgang, (1923) 192 Cal. 754, 221 P. 907).

Nor under the circumstances of immediate pursuit was Greenwood required to tell defendant that he was under arrest (Pen. C. §841; People v. Harris, 256 Cal.App.2d 455, 459, 63 Cal.Rptr. 849 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1967)). We conclude that defendant was legally arrested by Greenwood with the aid of Officers Johnson and Frazier.

E. Admission of Driving Doesn’t Create Presence

Although there is no admission here, the defendant’s admission of driving is no more relevant to whether or not the offense was committed in the presence of the arresting officer than was his alleged “subjective failure” of the field sobriety tests. Hence, the “driving in the presence” requirement cannot have been accomplished here as is specifically and statutorily required by PC §836. Conversely, however, is the fact that a respondent’s admission can establish the fact that an accident occurred, which constitutes a statutory exception to the presence requirement (See, Corrigan v. Zolin (1996) 47 CA4th 230, 54 CR2d 634 and VC §40300.5(a)).

F. No Vehicle Code Exception To Officer’s Presence Is Applicable

The only exceptions to the “presence” requirement under PC §836 for a DUI arrest are found in VC §40300.5, of which none are applicable to the case at bar. VC §40300.5 states as follows:

40300.5. In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836 of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:

(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.

(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway.

(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested.

(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested.

(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.

Thus, for example, where a peace officer (having probable cause) could arrest a person for misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs not committed in the officer’s presence where evidence could be destroyed unless the person was immediately arrested, VC §40300.5(e) created an exception to the presence requirement of PC §836, because evidence could be destroyed by the simple passage of time unless the person was immediately arrested. However, this did not authorize a peace officer to forcibly enter a residence to effect such an arrest. [See, People v. Schofield (2001) 90 CA4th 968, 109 CR2d 429.]

About The Author

DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only San Diego DUI lawyer who was the featured Speaker at 7 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last several years. Rick Mueller is known as the “DMV Guru”, and has practiced law since 1983. Learn more about Rick at http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/