Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

Chicago solid drug dose testing

Jan. 11th 2013

Attorney Jay Ruane spent 4 days in Chicago in January learning all about the chemical testing of drugs in solid dose (pre consumption testing). This means he is one of 8 lawyers in the entire USA who have had this training and the only lawyer in New England to accomplish this complicated course. In the course, Attorney Ruane learned about how crime labs can misidentify suspected drugs and even force the computer to read a legal drug as an illegal drug, thereby complicating the defense. The truth is that the Connecticut drug related DUI law is very vague, and the state lab provides minimal results to lawyers. By providing such little information, and these lawyers NOT having this drug training, they can be fooled into pleading innocent people to crimes they are otherwise innocent of.

20130111-165800.jpg

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The 10 Worst DUI Lawyers in Connecticut

Jan. 4th 2013

Top 10 Worst DUI defense lawyers

10.  The big firm lawyer: usually hired by the corporate father of the arrestee, they take the case in order to keep him from pulling away their other business, but they stick some junior associate on the case to hold hands and take whatever the prosecutor offers.

9.  The real estate lawyer:  They handled your house closing, so they have to be able to handle your DUI case, right?  Too bad 99% of house closing lawyers rarely set foot in a courthouse, let alone a classroom to learn about DUI defense.  They treat their case like a closing – follow a checklist and close it out.

8.  The “general practice” lawyer – they can handle anything, and everything – just not well.  They are trying to run a practice where they know everything about personal injury, bankruptcy, business organizations, wills, trusts and estates, and DUI.  Try being a jack of all trades and you become a master of none.

7.  The “Friend” who got a DUI.  Tells you that you don’t need a lawyer, tells you everything works out fine because their case was exactly the same.  Forgets to tell you that they don’t practice law, and can’t identify the legal issues that can mean the difference between winning and losing

6.  The Jail Mail lawyer:  sends out letters to everyone arrested saying they can help you and starts talking about how they resolve cases before ever even seeing the police report.  How can someone identify a good defense or a weakness in the states case if they haven’t done any investigation or even read the report?  They can’t – if they are telling you how it will resolve before they see these things – run!

5.  The divorce lawyer.  They bill by the hour and get paid for talking to you about your case.  They don’t have the training in the science, but they have no problem sounding like they do using lawyer talk and double speak.  The best part is that they tell you that they can handle a case when they spend their days arguing with exes about money – not keeping people out of jail.  Alimony may be a few years, but a conviction is a life sentence of a black mark.

4.  The Newbie.  Just out of law school.  Really, really needs work, and in this economy will take a case for $50 down and $50 a month.  Could be a great lawyer in a few years, once they have studied, but right now doesn’t even realize how much they need to learn.  The price is right, or so you think, but you could pay a higher price in the end.

3.  The Friend of a Friend.  The nice guy lawyer who tells you he will do you a favor.  Just meet him at the courthouse on your court date.  No money necessary – it’s just a favor for a friend.  Too bad he’s gonna put in about 5 minutes of work into your case – arriving just before you and getting a standard offer from the prosecutor, and give you all of 5 more minutes to decide what to do.

2.  The Undercutter.  Tell you he will do the case for $1000 less than the other guy.  If he values his time so poorly – can he really value you at all?

1.  The DUI mill.  Handles hundreds of DUI cases a year, yet put no time or effort into learning about the science of DUI or is ever seen on trial.  Walks you into court with a half dozen or more other clients and resolves your case exactly the same way, every time.  Come back tomorrow and you will see the same thing over and over.  Done with work by noon, and living a nice life while you ride the bus to work.

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Our front door.

Dec. 6th 2012

Please come in. We are open

20121206-150451.jpg

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

DMV Hearing

Dec. 5th 2012

Here at the Bridgeport DMV to fight for a license.

20121205-132849.jpg

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Connecticut Drug Law Information

Nov. 26th 2012

For over 100 years Federal laws have been in place to regulate and/or tax the production, importation, distribution, or possession of certain substances.  Today, Connecticut’s array of drug laws is based largely on the policies implemented by former President Nixon when he declared a “War on Drugs” in 1969 and implemented the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970.  Arrests and incarcerations for drug offenses have consistently risen since the “War on Drugs” was declared.  In 2008, 1.5 million Americans were arrested for drug related offenses and 500,000 were imprisoned.  ([[George Will |George F. Will]] (2009-10-29). “A reality check on drug use”. WashingtonPost.WashingtonPost.pp.A19.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102803801.html.)

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970 repealed most of the earlier federal anti-drug laws in favor of a comprehensive regime to combat the international and interstate traffic of illicit drugs.  The original enactment consists of three titles: Title I relates to the prevention and treatment of narcotic addicts through the Department of Health and Human Services; Title II addresses drug control and enforcement as administered by the Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration; and Title III concerns the import and export of controlled substances.

Title II of the Act, codified as Subchapter 1 under 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 801 to 904, is popularly known as the “Controlled Substances Act”, or simply the “CSA.”  The CSA categorizes controlled substances into five schedules depending on their accepted medical uses, potential for abuse, and psychological and physical effects on the body.  Each schedule is associated with a distinct set of controls regarding the manufacture, distribution, and use of the substances listed therein, and the applicable provisions set forth strict requirements regarding registration, labeling, packaging, production quotas, drug security, and record-keeping.  The CSA specifies prohibited acts and penalties and sets forth administrative and enforcement provisions. The Drug Enforcement Administration enforces the laws and regulations set forth in the CSA.

While the CSA authorizes federal prosecution for almost any drug offense, the DEA tends to focus its time and resources on the most serious offenders, who engage in serious interstate trafficking of controlled substances, which leaves the majority of drug crime offenders to be prosecuted by the states.  One important aspect of the Conncticut drug prosecution scheme is that it protects defendants from being subject to the “double jeopardy” and piling on of penalties that would result from both state and federal prosecution for the same offense.  CGSA § 21a-282 provides:

 No prosecution where federal action has been taken

No person shall be prosecuted for a violation of any provision of sections 21a-243 to 21a-282, inclusive, if such person has been acquitted or convicted under the federal Controlled Substances Act [FN1] or under the federal food and drug laws for the same act or omission which, it is alleged, constitutes a violation of said sections.

It is important for any defendant facing drug charges to understand whether she is being prosecuted under state or federal law, and to employ a qualified criminal defense attorney in either case.  Fortunately, in Connecticut, she will be subject to one or the other, not both.

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Connecticut DUI Lawyer Fees

Jan. 2nd 2012

Its 2012, and many people in Connecticut are looking at the unfortunate need for a DUI lawyer after their holidays turned sour with a DUI arrest.  When you are looking for a DUI lawyer to represent you one of the subjects you may be concerned with are the attorney fees. You may see advertisements in the newspaper, yellow pages, the internet or a billboard promoting low attorney fees. Many of these ads may be misleading much like those automobile ads screaming out how you can lease a new car for only $99 per month. It is important for you to find out exactly what your attorney fees cover. The defense of a DUI case may involve multiple layers. You not only will have court appearances to decide how you might resolve your case short of trial if possible. Further you may want the attorney to represent you in your motor vehicle operator’s license hearing and seek their help in obtaining a worker’s permit or Interlock device for your car that may result in a shorter license suspension. It is important to understand that an attorney’s fees are not universal. Some may charge you by the hour, by the court appearance and bill you separately for the administrative hearing on your license and some may quote you an “all-inclusive” upfront fee for everything but a Trial.  At Ruane Attorneys we have a flat, upfront and totally transparent fee plan.  When you come into our office, we will show you exactly what your fee is and what it will cover.  We have the same fee for cases regardless of what you drive or how much we think you can afford.  Our fees are set based on the amount of work that goes into a case, nothing else.

When you meet with a DUI lawyer it is important to find out exactly what the cost is going to be and what services your fees will in fact cover and to determine if that fee schedule meets your needs. You also need to determine what will the additional costs involve should you elect to take your case to trial.

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Why hire a local DUI Attorney?

Dec. 22nd 2011

It is important to consider what constitutes a local DUI attorney and how you can make the best decision regarding your legal representation. A local DUI attorney is not just one who happens to work out of a storefront office near a courthouse. Many courthouses are less than a twenty minute drive from one another. Therefore a local DUI attorney includes those that operate central offices in different parts of the State and are ready to represent you. There is one universal set of statutes governing DUI offenses in Connecticut in every courthouse so the skills of an experienced trained attorney you choose is more important than their location. The laws involving DUI are technical, complex and frequently changing. So when you are choosing a local DUI attorney you would be well served by one who devotes a large share of the practice to DUI defense and stays current on the changes in legislation, attends and teaches DUI training. Some local DUI attorneys may in fact be general practitioners who take DUI cases to supplement their practices or to help friends and family who have been charged with DUI. So the fact that a DUI attorney may be local is not as important as their experience and knowledge in the multifaceted DUI laws which are frequently being changed or updated. Choose your DUI attorney whether local or not after you have met with them to determine if that attorney can offer a first rate defense.

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Killed by police after a DUI traffic stop!

Nov. 21st 2011

Interesting story from Oklahoma where a routine Oklahoma DUI arrest end in the trooper shooting and killing the suspected Oklahoma DUI driver.  My friend, Oklahoma DUI lawyer John Hunsucker explains on his blog, www.duioklahoma.blogspot.com what not to do when you are being stopped for a DUI.

http://duioklahoma.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-not-to-do-when-being-stopped-for.html

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Download the Ruane Medical Abbreviation Guide Here

Jul. 20th 2011

Click on the Pay with a Tweet Button to post a message to twitter or facebook and gain access to the downloadable medical guide for free.  No harvesting of email addresses.  Just a little tweet or FaceBook post and the guide is all yours

Thanks!

Jay Ruane

Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »

New Criminal Court Opinions from our Connecticut Appellate Court

Jun. 28th 2011
Here are some recent decisions released by our appellate Court:  The biggest issue for criminal defense attorneys is Number 1, AC 31049  State v. Buie.
AC31049State v. Buie (“In this appeal, we must determine whether the apparent authority doctrine, which is an exception to the warrant requirement, is constitutional under the constitution of Connecticut.”)
AC31965State v. Butler (“The petitioner, James L. Butler, appeals following the denial of his petition for DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of certain evidence that had been introduced by the state in his criminal trial, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-102kk. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that a reasonable probability existed that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results obtained through DNA testing had been available at his criminal trial.”)
AC31865State v. Cote (“The petitioner, Roger P. Cote, appeals following the denial of his petition for DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of certain evidence that had been introduced by the state in his criminal trial, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-102kk. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that a reasonable probability existed that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results obtained through DNA testing had been available at his criminal trial.”)
AC32074State v. Chavarro (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion because (1) prior to accepting his plea, it did not inquire as to whether his attorney had advised him of the deportation consequences of his plea, (2) after accepting his plea, it made statements that rendered the § 54-1j advisement ambiguous, and (3) it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his motion sua sponte. In addition, the defendant claims that he was denied the right to a fair trial.”
AC31572State v. Milner (“The defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence for the court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that a probation violation had occurred, (2) the court discouraged him from exercising his right to allocution during the dispositional phase of the probation revocation hearing and (3) the court abused its discretion when, during the dispositional phase, it revoked his probation and sentenced him to forty-eight months imprisonment.”)
Posted by James O. Ruane | in Uncategorized | No Comments »