Hebets McCallin

For many people, attending a Denver Broncos game may be the highlight of a football season.  The Denver Broncos average more than 75,000 fans in attendance at each game.  However, for some people misunderstandings or run-ins with other fans can lead to ejection or arrest when attending a Denver Broncos game at Mile High stadium.

What to do if you get arrested at a Denver Broncos Game at Mile High Stadium

Whether you get arrested while at a Denver Broncos game, or anywhere else, there a few things that you should always do.  First, you should respectfully decline to make any statements to the police.  There are many reasons to avoid talking to the police, which we have written about before.  To summarize, usually the police get their best evidence in a case from admissions that defendants make.  Many people feel that when they are a paying customer of the Denver Broncos they should be given wide latitude in their behavior.  Typically the first contact involving an incident at a game is made by stadium security rather than police.  If you are able to cooperate with security and put the issue to rest you should.  Remember, however, that once the police at Mile High stadium get involved they will usually treat a Denver Broncos fan like any other arrest suspect.  Once you have been contacted by the police if you do not comply with their instructions you may end up with more serious charges.  While we understand that every Denver Broncos fan would probably just like to be left alone to enjoy the game we encourage fans to cooperate with the police while respectfully declining to speak about an incident.

Hiring an attorney when you have been charged with a crime at a Denver Broncos Game

If you have been charged with a crime at a Denver Broncos game these charges are just as serious as any criminal charge.    Hebets & McCallin regularly handles both arrests arising from Denver Broncos games and the types of charges associated with these cases.  If you want experienced criminal attorneys who understand the very particular nature of being arrested at a Denver Broncos game Hebets & McCalin can help.  We have a video that can help you decide if you need to hire an attorney.  Here is some basic information you need to be aware of, even if we are only talking about a petty offense or misdemeanor you should know the answer to some very basic questions. If I enter a plea how is this going to affect my permanent criminal record? Am I exposed to any jail time? Is the prosecution going to be asking for anything I don’t know about? Bottom line if you don’t know the answers to these questions at a minimum you should set up a consultation with a lawyer who is seasoned with criminal law.

When handling DUI cases in Colorado our firm deals with many people who are moving to Colorado who have prior DUI convictions in other states.  Many other states, including North Carolina, suspend habitual DUI offenders’ licenses for a lifetime, while in Colorado even the worst offender can still get their license back.  First, I’d like to examine the legal differences in license revocation between Colorado and North Carolina.  Second, there will be a discussion of the much larger question of whether or not lifetime revocation statutes like North Carolina’s are effective in preventing drunk driving and drunken driving accidents.

In Colorado for a DUI offense itself a third or more DUI offense only results in a 24 month license suspension; this chart summarizes the DUI penalties well.  If a person has three major traffic offenses (which includes, DUI, Driving under a restrained license, reckless driving, vehicular assault and homicide, etc.) within a seven year period their license can be revoked for five years.   This situation is the most comparable to North Carolina’s statute 20‑138.5 which describes the punishment for habitual impaired driving in the state of North Carolina.  In this instance when a person receives three or more convictions for driving while impaired they can lose their license permanently.

One peculiarity in Colorado law is that when a person who has a license that is under restraint in another state applies for a license in Colorado they may still receive a license.  Despite the interstate driver license compact according to CCR 204-116 Colorado will examine a suspended license as if the suspension happened in Colorado.  That means for a North Carolina driver serving a lifetime revocation after five years they would be eligible for a license in Colorado.  Colorado thus not only allows its own citizens to never lose their license permanently, but also grants the privilege to anyone who applies.

Many states have varying punishments for different crimes.  The far more important question is which of these justice approaches better protects the public.  There are many different ways to attempt to measure the effectiveness of lifetime revocations; the number of persons who stop driving, the number of DUI arrests, or the number of fatal accidents involving alcohol.  Each of these will be considered.

First, the Department of Transportation tracks the number of accidents that involve alcohol in each state and has kept these statistics since 1982.  The reason for keeping these statistics was to study alcohol related traffic accidents, and hopefully to reduce their occurrence.  These statistics do track some accidents where no DUI occurred, but they are a proximate measure of DUI related accidents. When the data began, 63% of all fatalities in both states were alcohol related.  However, the Colorado data shows that 2009 the last available year where data was available 38% of all fatalities were alcohol related.  North Carolina on the other hand has reduced their accidents to 33% of the total.  Looking at some other states data like Florida and Illinois who both also have lifetime revocations Colorado has higher DUI fatalities by percentage.  While this correlation cannot prove causation it does seem to indicate that lifetime revocations may help reduce alcohol related vehicular fatality.

Second, there have been some excellent studies regarding the effectiveness of revocations in stopping persons from driving.  A review by Lenton, Fetherston, and Cercarelli suggests that about 75% of people suspended will drive at some point during their suspension.  While this may seem discouraging it does mean that one-fourth of all suspended persons abide by the suspension, which would still produce results.  The study also suggests that many suspended drivers reduce their overall driving which should also increase safety.

Third, DUI arrests can be compared between the two states.  Some might say North Carolina does pursue DUI arrests more aggressively than almost any other state in the union, and they arrest the fourth most total number of persons for DUI each year.   According to the FBI North Carolina arrested 50,907 while Colorado arrested 27,833.  However, on a per capita basis North Carolina makes .0054 DUI arrests per citizen and Colorado makes .0055 arrests per citizen, which are fairly comparable.  This fact could have several implications.  It might be true that less persons drive drunk in North Carolina but their enforcement is stronger which is why the rates are comparable, but it might also mean that Colorado is enforcing DUI laws just as stringently as North Carolina.

Overall, it appears that lifetime driver’s license revocations may reduce the risk of drunk driving.  Even if we only give credit to the fact that 25% of persons follow revocations this policy would still reduce the potential number of recidivist drunk drivers on the roads.

Jerry Sandusky was back in court this morning for his preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is a court proceeding in which the prosecution is required to prove to a judge that they have enough evidence to proceed to trial. Procedurally this means that witnesses to Sandusky’s alleged offense would be required to testify under oath, and those witnesses would be subject to cross-examination from Jerry Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Ameldola. Sandusky and his attorney shocked a crowded courtroom when they elected to waive Sandusky’s right to a preliminary hearing. The million dollar question is: was this a smart move?
Before we get into that answer, let’s get the eventual outcome of the preliminary hearing out of the way. From the defense standpoint, it is a loser. The bar on a preliminary hearing is low, and the prosecution would definitely have been able to present enough evidence to move the case forward to trial. No amount of fancy legal footwork would change that outcome. At the end of the day Jerry Sandusky would still be moving on to trial regardless of the decision on the preliminary hearing.
So, was the waiver a good idea? Let’s start with the pros of going through a preliminary hearing as a defendant. Far and away the most compelling reason to go through a preliminary hearing is that the defense would have an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. It’s tough to underestimate the value of this. Joe Ameldola would literally have a free dry run to question all of Sandusky’s principal accusers. Want to know whether any alleged victims are planning to file a civil monetary suit? Just ask. Want to find out if there are inconsistencies with the times or places of the alleged violations? Just ask. Any answers to any relevant questions would be made under oath and on the record, meaning that the witnesses would be held to those answers in a subsequent trial.
OK, so Sandusky screwed up by waiving the preliminary hearing, right? Not so fast. There are some pretty compelling reasons to waive a preliminary hearing in this case. First, the testimony that would be given in a preliminary hearing would create a media circus. The lurid details of child sex assault in this high profile case could easily create a mountain of damaging pre-trial publicity. Remember, the defense doesn’t put on a case at a preliminary hearing, so all of the testimony would be solely from the perspective of the prosecution. There are other small benefits of waiving a preliminary hearing such as keeping the lines of communication open with the prosecutors for a potential plea, and not tipping your hand and revealing your eventual defense at trial. When you add these benefits up, the waiver doesn’t look so silly.
Ultimately an outside legal observer can only speculate as the value to assign each of these factors. At first glance it is pretty tough for a defense attorney to pass up on a free shot at witnesses on a case of this magnitude. Despite that, Joe Ameldola clearly knows more than we do about the case. At the end of the day there is no cut and dry answer. Jerry Sandusky can only hope that his attorney knows what he’s doing.

Denver has its first major snowstorm forecasted for Wednesday, October 26 and a lot of citizens are now preparing for winter.  What many of them might not realize is that leaving their sidewalks unplowed might lead to trouble that could snowball out of control.

In the city of Denver homeowners have 24 hours after snow stops falling to remove it from their sidewalks, but business owners only have 4 hours.  The Denver municipal code regulates snow removal, while the punishment for failure to remove snow is created by the manager of public works.  In Denver failure to remove snow can incur a fee of up to $150.

Some readers might think this is a silly law that would never be enforced, however, last year over 3,000 cases of failure to shovel snow were investigated. Denver does try to work with first time

offenders to let them correct the condition, but habitual offenders can face fines.  If you are forced to use walkways that have not been cleared you can report the condition using Denver 3-1-1.