<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Recent Blog Posts</title>
		<atom:link href="http://www.lawsmith.net/Blog/Recent-Blog-Posts/RSS.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<link>http://www.lawsmith.net/Blog/Recent-Blog-Posts/RSS.xml</link>
		<description></description>
		<item>
			<title>The Horse, the bicycle, and the lawnmower</title>
			<link>http://www.lawsmith.net//Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog/2012/February/The-Horse-the-bicycle-and-the-lawnmower.aspx</link>
			<guid>http://www.lawsmith.net//Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog/2012/February/The-Horse-the-bicycle-and-the-lawnmower.aspx</guid>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;A question I get sometimes from clients is &amp;quot;Can I be charged with D.W.I. in North Carolina while riding a bicycle?&amp;quot; The answer, unfortunately, is yes. You can be charged and convicted in the Great State of North Carolina for Driving While Impaired if you are impaired and riding a bicycle. Under the pertinent section of the law, NCGS 20-4.01 (49) North Carolina defines vehicle as: &lt;/p&gt; 
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Vehicle. &amp;ndash; Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon fixed rails or tracks; provided, that for the purposes of this Chapter bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle except those which by their nature can have no application. This term shall not include a device which is designed for and intended to be used as a means of transportation for a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement, is suitable for use both inside and outside a building, including on sidewalks, and is limited by design to 15 miles per hour when the device is being operated by a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement. This term shall not include an electric personal assistive mobility device as defined in G.S. 20‑4.01(7a).&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt; 
&lt;p&gt;Luckily, North Carolina can&amp;#39;t bust a person who is impaired on a horse. I guess the folks in Raleigh feel that the horse is probably not stupid enough to let its rider make it do something it knows better than to do. Interestingly, a lawnmower is another &amp;quot;vehicle&amp;quot; that can lead to a D.W.I. conviction in North Carolina. Food for thought.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			<author>J. Scott Smith</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Man spends 2 years in jail for drunk driving arrest; never sees a Judge</title>
			<link>http://www.lawsmith.net//Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog/2012/February/Man-spends-2-years-in-jail-for-drunk-driving-arr.aspx</link>
			<guid>http://www.lawsmith.net//Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog/2012/February/Man-spends-2-years-in-jail-for-drunk-driving-arr.aspx</guid>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;Some days, I have trouble believing this type of thing can happen in the United States of America. Many of you have probably heard the story already. Last week, a man won $22 million from a jury due to his treatment in New Mexico&amp;#39;s Dona Ana County jail. Not only did he have to pull one of his own teeth, but fungus grew under his skin! Apparently, he was ignored so much that his toe nails grew so long that they curled around his feet. He was arrested in 2005 and thrown in jail for two years; without a trial. In fact, he never even saw a Judge. How does this happen in our Country? To make matters worse, the county says it will appeal the jury verdict. How awful. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
			<author>Lawsmith, PLC</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>State v. Otto</title>
			<link>http://www.lawsmith.net//Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog/2012/January/State-v-Otto.aspx</link>
			<guid>http://www.lawsmith.net//Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog/2012/January/State-v-Otto.aspx</guid>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;State v. Otto&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt; 
&lt;p&gt;The North Carolina Court of Appeals seems to be standing by there earlier ruling in State v. Fields with this new case. The facts in this case are that the defendant, Mary Otto, was observed by a North Carolina State Trooper in February, 2008 weaving from the center line to the fog line. Ms. Otto was followed for 3/4 of a mile before being stopped. She was one half a mile away from the Country Club, which the officer thought &lt;strong&gt;may&lt;/strong&gt; have been serving alcohol. The Court cited State v. Fields 
	&lt;em&gt;195 NC App 740&lt;/em&gt; in the opinion stating that without anything other than just the weaving, there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The Court concluded that based on the totality of the circumstances the Trooper did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Ms. Otto and that the stop violated her Fourth Ammendment rights. It&amp;#39;s good to know that weaving alone is not enough.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			<author>J. Scott Smith</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Welcome to our new Winston - Salem DWI Blog</title>
			<link>http://www.lawsmith.net//Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog/2012/January/Welcome-to-our-new-Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog.aspx</link>
			<guid>http://www.lawsmith.net//Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog/2012/January/Welcome-to-our-new-Winston-Salem-DWI-Blog.aspx</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;We are pleased to announce the launch of our new Winston - Salem DWI Blog with an RSS feed located at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lawsmith.net/Blog/Entire-Blog-Feed/RSS.xml&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;/Blog/Entire-Blog-Feed/RSS.xml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			<author>Law Office of J. Scott Smith, PLLC</author>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
