No Actual Suspension For Isolated DUI

The Louisiana Supreme Court imposed a fully-stayed suspension for a DUI with compelling mitigation

On September 8, 2017, respondent was involved in an automobile accident as she drove west on Perkins Road in Baton Rouge. A witness saw respondent’s vehicle cross the center line and veer into oncoming traffic, drive onto private property, strike a parked, unoccupied vehicle, and then come to rest in a ditch. The police officers who responded to the scene detected an odor of alcohol on respondent and placed her under arrest after she failed a field sobriety test.

Subsequent investigation revealed that respondent was in possession of a small amount of marijuana, a .38 caliber revolver, and $19,880 in cash. She was  booked with DWI, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, failure to maintain control, and simple possession of marijuana. Testing revealed that respondent’s blood alcohol level was .144g%, nearly twice the legal limit in Louisiana.

Respondent is enrolled in a one-year pretrial diversion program and will have successfully completed the requirements of the program by September 2019. Furthermore, she consulted the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”) for an evaluation, the results of which indicated that she does not suffer from a substance use disorder. Accordingly, JLAP made no recommendations for further testing or treatment.

In the ensuing bar matter

she maintained the incident was a one-time occurrence and an “accumulation of personal matters that had overwhelmed her.” Respondent stated that she has been sober since her arrest, citing her successful completion of a substance use education program and random drug tests and submission to an interlock device on her vehicle that yielded no infractions. She also noted that the marijuana in her possession at the time of her arrest was a small amount for her personal use, and that the firearm and cash in her vehicle were returned to her by the police.

Mitigation

In 2008, respondent left a difficult marriage and lost her home and all of her savings. She was able to find a house in Zachary and lived there until August 2016, when the historic floods in East Baton Rouge Parish inundated her home with two feet of water. The house was uninhabitable for over a year and respondent also lost her car. After the flood, she moved in with her sister for a while and then a friend took her in until she was able to move back into her home. Through all of this, respondent testified that she went to work every day, as she had to make a living and she had an employee who depended on her for her livelihood.

Respondent testified that on the day of the accident in September 2017, she had just returned to her home after the flood. She had a mattress on the floor, no curtains on the windows, and her clothes were still stored at her law office. It was a Friday and her office was closed. Respondent testified that she just wanted to be somewhere for herself that day, as getting back into her house after the flood had been very traumatic, so she decided to visit her family home in the Mayfair area where she grew up.

Respondent arrived at Mayfair around 1:00 p.m. Her nephew, who lives there, rolled a joint and respondent acknowledges smoking some, not the whole joint, while there. Respondent also drank four mini-bottles of Sutter Home Chardonnay.

Respondent stayed at Mayfair until she left to go to her office to pick up a dress for a funeral service she had to attend. She did not feel intoxicated. She remembers driving down Perkins Road, but does not recall anything about the accident itself. The last thing she remembered before the crash was a particular song on the radio, and then the next thing she knew her airbag had deployed and a paramedic was knocking on her car window.

The court on sanction

Here, respondent has not been involved in multiple DWI offenses. Further, following an evaluation by JLAP, it was determined that respondent does not suffer from a substance use disorder, and as such JLAP did not recommend any further testing or treatment. Therefore, the conditions under which we normally impose an actual period of suspension are not present in this case.

Based on this jurisprudence, as well as the absence of any objection by the ODC to the hearing committee’s report, we will accept the committee’s recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, fully deferred.

A fair result. (Mike Frisch)