Tag: Tampa DUI Lawyer

Breath Test Over 08, DUI On Drugs

Can you get a DUI in a Tesla or self-driving car (Video)?

W F Casey Ebsary Jr
DUI In Tesla’s Self-Driving Car?DUI in a Tesla – What happens when an officer pulls over a self-driving car? Can the officer charge anyone with a DUI in a self-driving Tesla? Some Scholars have written about this and I thought we might review this issue. Tesla automobiles have an autopilot feature. It is not truly self-driving as Tesla has referred to it as semi-autonomous driving. Other car companies have also tried developing autopilot technology.

What happens when an officer pulls over a self-driving car?

Understanding DUI Charges and Self-Driving Teslas

Read on to learn about the legal implications of being pulled over in a self-driving Tesla.

Can an Officer Charge Anyone with a DUI in a Self-Driving Tesla?

Self-driving technology has been gaining momentum in recent years, with companies like Tesla at the forefront of this emerging industry. However, this technology has raised questions about how law enforcement officers will handle DUI charges when it comes to self-driving cars. In the case of a self-driving Tesla, the driver is not technically in control of the vehicle, which complicates matters for law enforcement officials.

Scholars’ Perspectives on the Issue

Legal scholars have written extensively on this topic, and there is no clear consensus on how the law should treat self-driving vehicles. Some argue that the driver is still responsible for any DUI charges that may arise, as they are ultimately in control of the vehicle, even if they are not physically driving it. Others believe that the responsibility should fall on the car’s manufacturer, as they are the ones who designed and produced the vehicle’s self-driving technology.

Navigating the Future of Transportation

As the technology behind self-driving cars continues to develop, it is likely that we will see more legal and regulatory changes in how they are treated under the law. In the meantime, it is important for both law enforcement officials and the general public to educate themselves on the current state of the law and how it may apply in cases involving self-driving vehicles.

Stay informed about the latest developments in self-driving technology and the law by following reputable sources and consulting with legal professionals as needed.

Here are a few sources to support the information presented:

These sources provide in-depth analysis of the legal and regulatory issues surrounding self-driving cars, including the potential implications for DUI charges.

California Highway Patrol Charges Driver With DUI in a Tesla.

In January 2018, in San Francisco, a person in a Tesla car had an alcohol level twice the legal limit. The Tesla’s operator received a DUI. Tesla has instructed drivers using autopilot to maintain consciousness while driving. Also, Tesla tells drivers using autopilot to keep their hands on the steering wheel. In this arrest, the driver explained that the Tesla was on autopilot to the California Highway Patrol. Even with the driver’s explanation, the officer arrested and charged the driver with DUI. The California Highway Patrol tweeted that the car did not drive itself to the tow yard.

Will Florida Officers Charge Drivers With DUI in a Tesla?

Florida law prohibits an intoxicated driver from being in actual physical control of a vehicle. The car does not need to be moving at the time of a DUI arrest. Florida only requires that the vehicle is capable of being moved. The case law discusses the location of the keys and whether or not the car is operable. Under this broad definition of driving that includes the capacity of physical control of the car, it is highly unlikely the operator of a self-driving car would beat a DUI on that defense. It is probable that the court would find the driver was in actual physical control of the vehicle. Hence, some cars equipped with these automatic driving features have contracts that require the user to keep hands on the steering wheel even when the vehicle is in autopilot mode.

 

Uncategorized

How to Choose Tampa DUI Lawyer DUI Attorney

W F Casey Ebsary Jr

How to Choose a DUI Attorney

How To, Reviews , Compare, Hillsborough , Pinellas , Tampa DUI Lawyer, Polk , Pasco DUI Lawyer, dui checkpoint, dui , video
How to Choose a
DUI Lawyer

If you’ve been charged with a DUI in Florida, it’s important to find a reputable DUI attorney who can help you navigate the legal system and achieve the best possible outcome for your case. Casey the Lawyer is a well-known DUI expert in Florida who has been providing legal representation for over 20 years. Here are some key questions to ask when hiring a DUI attorney:

  1. Is the Lawyer Board Certified?

Board certification is an important factor to consider when hiring a DUI attorney. Board certification means that the lawyer has been recognized by the Florida Bar as having significant experience and knowledge in a particular area of law, in this case, DUI defense. Casey the Lawyer is a board-certified criminal trial attorney, which means he has demonstrated a high level of proficiency in criminal defense law.

  1. Is the Lawyer Experienced?

Experience is key when it comes to DUI defense. You want a lawyer who has handled many cases like yours and has a proven track record of success. Casey the Lawyer has been practicing law for over 20 years and has represented countless clients in DUI cases. He has a deep understanding of the legal system and knows how to develop effective defense strategies.

  1. Will you receive Personal Attention?

Personal attention is important when it comes to working with a DUI attorney. You want a lawyer who will take the time to listen to your concerns, answer your questions, and keep you informed throughout the legal process. Casey the Lawyer prides himself on providing personalized attention to his clients. He works closely with each client to develop a tailored defense strategy and keeps his clients informed every step of the way.

  1. Is the Lawyer a Former DUI Prosecutor?

Having a former DUI prosecutor on your side can be a significant advantage in your case. A lawyer who has worked on the other side of the aisle knows how the prosecution thinks and can anticipate their strategies. Casey the Lawyer is a former DUI prosecutor and has a deep understanding of how the prosecution approaches these cases.

  1. Is the Lawyer a Criminal Defense Expert?

While it’s important to find a lawyer who specializes in DUI defense, it’s also important to find a lawyer who has a broad range of criminal defense experience. This is because DUI cases often involve other criminal charges, such as reckless driving, drug possession, or even assault. Casey the Lawyer is a board-certified criminal trial attorney, which means he has extensive experience in a wide range of criminal defense cases.

In conclusion, hiring a reputable DUI attorney is essential if you’ve been charged with a DUI in Florida. Casey the Lawyer is an experienced and knowledgeable DUI expert who can help you navigate the legal system and achieve the best possible outcome for your case. By asking the key questions outlined above, you can ensure that you hire the right lawyer for your needs.

A useful checklist for hiring a DUI Attorney. Call and ask these Questions:

1. Is the Lawyer Board Certified?
2. Is the Lawyer Experienced?
3. Will you receive Personal Attention?
4. Is the Lawyer a Former DUI Prosecutor?
5. Is the Lawyer a Criminal Defense Expert?
In Florida, less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Lawyers are Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law. Some, but not all Criminal Defense Attorneys are former prosecutors. Former DUI Prosecutors know how the justice system works from inside the office that is seeking your conviction for the crime of Driving Under the Influence. Some firms practice law all over the state with hundreds of open cases in several jurisdictions but we have specialized in this region of Florida.

Video – How to Find and Then Choose a Hillsborough DUI Attorney

This video narrates a recent visit to a DUI Checkpoint. This includes DUI Attorney Casey Ebsary mapping the DUI hot spots in the Hillsborough County Florida area. The St. Petersburg Times reports that in one area, “Town ‘N Country, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s DUI deputies make sure they monitor that portion of the county every single night.”
The Data also shows:

Top 3 spots for DUI arrests:

Brandon: 412 | Town ‘N Country: 226 | New Tampa: 195 DUI Arrests.

Video – How to Find and Choose a Pasco DUI Lawyer

Narrates a recent visit to a DUI Checkpoint. Here is what we saw.  There is a Pasco Florida Highway Patrol Arrest Contest. Florida DUI Attorney Lawyer continues to be concerned with the game that some police agencies have made out of DUI arrests. DUI cops in Pasco County Florida set out to break a record of some sort. Then informed the media that a DUI record was broken. The headline reads: “Trooper sets records for DUI arrests.”
Trooper Ron Evans and his colleague “fellow Trooper Richard Arias focus a lot of attention of U.S. 19” so says Fox News in Tampa, Florida. “Evans has developed a well-known reputation for getting suspected drunk drivers off the streets. Last year, he made 238 arrests; back in 2004, he arrested 300.” says Fox News. Arias became a Trooper less than a year ago.

Video – How to Select and or Choose a Pinellas DUI Attorney

 

DUI Pinellas Attorney Lawyer 1-877-793-9290 or 813-222-2220  – Casey Narrates a video where recently we visited a DUI Checkpoint. In the meantime, a Pinellas DUI Checkpoint was invalidated.

Pinellas DUI Checkpoint Invalid

Pinellas DUI checkpoint was invalidated. Pinellas DUI checkpoint was invalidated. The problem with this case is not with the Plan itself, but rather the lack of evidence that the Plan was complied with in conducting the traffic stop of the defendant. The competent substantial evidence is ”sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached.” See Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Trimble, 821 So.2d 1084, 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citing DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957)).

Video –  How to Go About Choosing a Tampa DUI Attorney

 

 

Call 813-222-2220 Help for You, a friend, or Loved One. In this video DUI Tampa Attorney Lawyer discusses how to choose an Attorney. Meanwhile, Tampa DUI Charges are Dropped  amidst a huge scandal at the Tampa Police Department – Video Updates

DUI Scandal Update 

Tampa DUI Scandal Update: Call our Tipline at 813-222-2220 if you have information about this story. Looking to shore up confidence after a controversial DUI arrest, the Tampa Police department is launching a review of several dozen DUI …Tampa DUI Scandal – read more

Tampa DUI Lawyer Just reviewed video of a Deputy Sheriff – he Crashes and then Refuses to take a Breath Test. Watch Florida Highway Patrol Video that shows the arrest. Allegations have arisen that the deputy told witnesses they did not need to remain at the scene of the alleged Florida DUI crash. Standby for more details on this breaking story.

Tampa DUI Scandal Update:

Call our Tipline at 813-222-2220 if you have information about this story. Looking to shore up confidence after a controversial DUI arrest, the Tampa Police department is launching a review of several dozen DUI cases. The subjects of the investigation – the cases involving two Officers: Ray Fernandez, Tim McGinnis. We have suspected that DUI cops were watching people and places for reasons they often would not admit. To his credit, the officer in the video below tells us they watch parking lots, act on tips received by phone and other types of electronic messages. We have protected the identity of one officer and give him credit for testifying so candidly. Tips to watch locations come from Phone Calls from Bar Managers, letters, pictures he says, “I get all kinds of stuff.”

In early August, I met with an investigative reporter with a major media outlet in Tampa Bay and shared what we had already uncovered in our review of DUI case procedures. Video Can be seen here: https://dui2go.com/tampa-dui-lawyers-charges-dropped-video-updates


Blood Testing in DUI Cases

Tampa DUI AttorneyReviews Supreme Court on Blood Draws and notes that today the Supreme Court holds that in DUI investigations the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency to justify warrantless blood test. The Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri, concluding that “the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not establish a per se exigency that suffices on its own to justify an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in drunk-driving investigations.”
In DUI / drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute per se exigency sufficient to justify an exception to Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing. The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception applies where the search involves a compelled physical intrusion beneath the person’s skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a criminal investigation. Natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support an exigency finding in a specific case, but it does not do so categorically. Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.
Download a free copy here:

Video – Choosing a Polk DUI Defense Lawyer Attorney

 

 

A Polk DUI Defense Lawyer Attorney can help you, a friend or a loved one. Call 1-877-793-9290 to discuss your case. DUI or Drunk Driving is a serious charge to have on your driving record in Polk County. You need a serious defense.
Polk County DUI Attorney reports on the DUI Drug court division established by Judge Ronald A. Herring. The Judge ordered that any multiple DUI offender may have the option of DUI Court as part of a plea offer. If allowed the plea offer and the case of the multiple DUI offender transfers into the Polk County DUI defendant’s case to the Judge presiding over DUI or Drug Court occur. The DUI/Drug Court shall be a condition of the offender’s probation. Also involved in the DUI Court are: Judges, Assistant State Attorneys, Defense Attorneys, County Probation, Polk County Sheriff’s Office, Lakeland Police Department Offices, AA representatives, and MADD representatives.
Other Topics Include:
How To, Reviews , Compare, DUI Hillsborough Lawyer, Pinellas DUI Lawyer, Tampa DUI Lawyer, Polk DUI Lawyer, Pasco DUI Lawyer, dui checkpoint, dui
DUI News

TRAF1025 DUI WITH PROPERTY DAMAGE OR PERSONAL INJURY

W F Casey Ebsary Jr

316.1933.C12B, DUI WITH PROPERTY DAMAGE OR PERSONAL INJURY M, Tampa DUI Lawyer, TRAF1025
Driving Under Influence Property Damage Personal Injury
Driving Under Influence
Property Damage Personal Injury

“A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state”

Driving Under Influence  Property Damage Personal Injury

If you have been charged with TRAF1025 DUI WITH PROPERTY DAMAGE OR PERSONAL INJURY M you can call a Tampa DUI Lawyer NOW FOR FREE at 1-877-793-9290 and tell me your story.

The term “serious bodily injury” means an injury to any person, including the driver, which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

Form Code: TRAF1025
Florida Statute: 316.1933.C12B
Level: Fel (Felony)
Degree: 3rd

Description: DUI WITH PROPERTY DAMAGE OR PERSONAL INJURY M

 

TRAF1025 DUI WITH PROPERTY DAMAGE OR PERSONAL INJURY M  is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

 

Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL


316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.

(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;

(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or

(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

(12) If the records of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles show that the defendant has been previously convicted of the offense of driving under the influence, that evidence is sufficient by itself to establish that prior conviction for driving under the influence. However, such evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence. This presumption may be considered along with any other evidence presented in deciding whether the defendant has been previously convicted of the offense of driving under the influence.

(b)1. Any person who is convicted of a third violation of this section for an offense that occurs within 10 years after a prior conviction for a violation of this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In addition, the court shall order the mandatory placement for a period of not less than 2 years, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. The installation of such device may not occur before July 1, 2003.

2. Any person who is convicted of a third violation of this section for an offense that occurs more than 10 years after the date of a prior conviction for a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $2,000 or more than $5,000 and by imprisonment for not more than 12 months. In addition, the court shall order the mandatory placement for a period of at least 2 years, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. The installation of such device may not occur before July 1, 2003.

3. Any person who is convicted of a fourth or subsequent violation of this section, regardless of when any prior conviction for a violation of this section occurred, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, the fine imposed for such fourth or subsequent violation may be not less than $2,000.

2nd Time DUI Or More, DUI News

TRAF1037 DUI 2ND CONVICTION

W F Casey Ebsary Jr

316.1933.C12A, Driving Under Influence DUI 2nd, DUI 2ND CONVICTION, Tampa DUI Lawyer, TRAF1037,
What is TRAF1037?
Driving Under Influence DUI 2nd

“For a second conviction, by mandatory placement for a period of at least 1 year, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device”

What is TRAF1037?

 
A charge code used in Hillsborough County, Florida Criminal Cases. It represents a second DUI misdemeanor charge, double the penalties, a mandatory ignition interlock, and a harsh driver’s license suspension, without a business purposes license for months.

Charged with TRAF1037 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE Second Conviction – Call an expert defense attorney at 813-222-2220.

Form Code: TRAF1037
Florida Statute: 316.1933.C12A
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st

Description: DUI 2ND CONVICTION

TRAF1037 DUI 2ND CONVICTION is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

 

Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL



316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.

(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;

(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or

(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

(2)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), subsection (3), or subsection (4), any person who is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) shall be punished:

1. By a fine of:
a. Not less than $500 or more than $1,000 for a first conviction.
b. Not less than $1,000 or more than $2,000 for a second conviction; and

2. By imprisonment for:
a. Not more than 6 months for a first conviction.
b. Not more than 9 months for a second conviction.

3. For a second conviction, by mandatory placement for a period of at least 1 year, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. The installation of such device may not occur before July 1, 2003.

(b)1. Any person who is convicted of a third violation of this section for an offense that occurs within 10 years after a prior conviction for a violation of this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In addition, the court shall order the mandatory placement for a period of not less than 2 years, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. The installation of such device may not occur before July 1, 2003.

2. Any person who is convicted of a third violation of this section for an offense that occurs more than 10 years after the date of a prior conviction for a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $2,000 or more than $5,000 and by imprisonment for not more than 12 months. In addition, the court shall order the mandatory placement for a period of at least 2 years, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. The installation of such device may not occur before July 1, 2003.

3. Any person who is convicted of a fourth or subsequent violation of this section, regardless of when any prior conviction for a violation of this section occurred, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, the fine imposed for such fourth or subsequent violation may be not less than $2,000.

(3) Any person:

(a) Who is in violation of subsection (1);

(b) Who operates a vehicle; and

(c) Who, by reason of such operation, causes or contributes to causing:

1. Damage to the property or person of another commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

2. Serious bodily injury to another, as defined in s. 316.1933, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

3. The death of any human being or unborn quick child commits DUI manslaughter, and commits:

a. A felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

b. A felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if:

(I) At the time of the crash, the person knew, or should have known, that the crash occurred; and

(II) The person failed to give information and render aid as required by s. 316.062.

For purposes of this subsection, the definition of the term “unborn quick child” shall be determined in accordance with the definition of viable fetus as set forth in s. 782.071. A person who is convicted of DUI manslaughter shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 4 years.

DUI News

TRAF1009 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (OVER 0.15)

W F Casey Ebsary Jr

316.193.1 4, DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (OVER 0.15), DUI Over .015, Tampa DUI Lawyer, TRAF1009,
DUI Over .015
DUI Over .015

“court shall order the mandatory placement, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device”

What is TRAF1009?

 

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, the Clerk of Court, and the State Attorney use charge codes to describe the allegations in a criminal case. In this case, the charge means a misdemeanor DUI with an alleged Blood Alcohol / Breath test result over .15. This charge results in double the penalties and a mandatory Interlock, if convicted.

Have you been charged with TRAF1009 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE Over .015  Call an expert defense attorney at 813-222-2220.

Form Code: TRAF1009


Florida Statute: 316.193.1 4
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 1st

Description: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (OVER 0.15)

 

TRAF1009 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (OVER 0.15) is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

 

Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL


316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.

(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;

(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or

(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

(2)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), subsection (3), or subsection (4), any person who is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) shall be punished:

1. By a fine of:

a. Not less than $500 or more than $1,000 for a first conviction.

b. Not less than $1,000 or more than $2,000 for a second conviction; and

2. By imprisonment for:

a. Not more than 6 months for a first conviction.

b. Not more than 9 months for a second conviction.

3. For a second conviction, by mandatory placement for a period of at least 1 year, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. The installation of such device may not occur before July 1, 2003.

(b) 1. Any person who is convicted of a third violation of this section for an offense that occurs within 10 years after a prior conviction for a violation of this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In addition, the court shall order the mandatory placement for a period of not less than 2 years, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. The installation of such device may not occur before July 1, 2003.

2. Any person who is convicted of a third violation of this section for an offense that occurs more than 10 years after the date of a prior conviction for a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $2,000 or more than $5,000 and by imprisonment for not more than 12 months. In addition, the court shall order the mandatory placement for a period of at least 2 years, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. The installation of such device may not occur before July 1, 2003.

3. Any person who is convicted of a fourth or subsequent violation of this section, regardless of when any prior conviction for a violation of this section occurred, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, the fine imposed for such fourth or subsequent violation may be not less than $2,000.

(3) Any person:

(a) Who is in violation of subsection (1);

(b) Who operates a vehicle; and

(c) Who, by reason of such operation, causes or contributes to causing:

1. Damage to the property or person of another commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

2. Serious bodily injury to another, as defined in s. 316.1933, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

3. The death of any human being or unborn quick child commits DUI manslaughter, and commits:

a. A felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

b. A felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if:

(I) At the time of the crash, the person knew, or should have known, that the crash occurred; and

(II) The person failed to give information and render aid as required by s. 316.062.

For purposes of this subsection, the definition of the term “unborn quick child” shall be determined in accordance with the definition of viable fetus as set forth in s. 782.071.

A person who is convicted of DUI manslaughter shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 4 years.

(4) Any person who is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) and who has a blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.15 or higher, or any person who is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) and who at the time of the offense was accompanied in the vehicle by a person under the age of 18 years, shall be punished:
    
(a) By a fine of:
        
1. Not less than $1,000 or more than $2,000 for a first conviction.
        
2. Not less than $2,000 or more than $4,000 for a second conviction.
        
3. Not less than $4,000 for a third or subsequent conviction.

(b) By imprisonment for:

1. Not more than 9 months for a first conviction.

2. Not more than 12 months for a second conviction.

For the purposes of this subsection, only the instant offense is required to be a violation of subsection (1) by a person who has a blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.15 or higher.

(c) In addition to the penalties in paragraphs (a) and (b), the court shall order the mandatory placement, at the convicted person’s sole expense, of an ignition interlock device approved by the department in accordance with s. 316.1938 upon all vehicles that are individually or jointly leased or owned and routinely operated by the convicted person for not less than 6 continuous months for the first offense and for not less than 2 continuous years for a second offense, when the convicted person qualifies for a permanent or restricted license.