In June 2018, a woman in the U.S. state of Illinois was arrested after she admitted to texting a man while driving.
According to the police report, the man told her he was going to buy her $1,200 worth of marijuana, and she agreed to pay for it with cash.
The officer, in the course of questioning, asked if she had any weapons, and when she denied any weapons she said she had a small knife.
He then said she could not afford the $1.50 bill.
He told her she could be charged with “drunken driving” if she did not comply.
The woman pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and was sentenced to a $250 fine and 90 days in jail.
She appealed the decision to the Illinois Court of Appeals, and the appeals court ruled in her favor.
In September 2018, an appellate court in Illinois reversed the lower court’s decision, finding that a DUI conviction should be overturned because it violated the Sixth Amendment.
According a decision from the appeals board, “the statute’s prohibition of alcohol sales while driving was an integral element of the statute, and is therefore a substantive violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
In March 2019, the Illinois legislature passed a bill that requires any person convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs to pay $25 for each DUI conviction.
In June 2019, it passed a law that requires police officers to stop people for failing to submit to sobriety tests.
That same month, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois filed a lawsuit against the state of Indiana for its implementation of the law.
The ACLU of Illinois argues that the law violates the right to due process and equal protection under the law, and seeks to reverse the lower courts decision.
“In the current context, there is a clear, and well-established, expectation that the government will not use a drunk driving charge to intimidate and discriminate against people of color, LGBTQ people, immigrants, people with disabilities, and those with mental health problems,” ACLU of Indiana Attorney John Rauh said in a statement.
“The law does not provide the protection that it claims to provide.”
In October 2018, Illinois became the fifth state to adopt a DUI statute.
In January 2019, a U.K. man was sentenced in the city of Bristol, England, to three and a half years in prison for driving under the combined influence of drink and drugs, after police stopped him in a residential area and found a small amount of cannabis and a small bag of cocaine inside his car.
The police officer told the defendant that he could not be arrested for drunk driving because he did not have any alcohol on him, and that he had the right not to answer questions about his driving history.
The defendant was released from custody two days later.
According the Daily Mail, police had searched the defendant’s car before he was arrested, and found no drugs or alcohol.
The report of the incident stated that the defendant admitted to having a drink after the incident, but denied that he smoked any drugs during the arrest.
A British Transport Police officer, who witnessed the incident and spoke to the defendant, also said that he saw a large amount of drugs and alcohol inside the defendants car.
In December 2018, the U,K.
High Court ruled that a police officer can use the power of a sobriethrower to arrest someone for drinking while under alcohol and/or drugs.
The judge noted that the officer had “no reasonable basis to believe that he was committing a crime, and in fact was only exercising his discretion in relation to a matter of personal importance.”
The ruling said the use of the device was not “an excessive use of force.”
The judge also said the officer’s use of a breathalyzer, which showed a blood alcohol content of 0.18, “did not reveal a substantial impairment.”
The officer used the device to determine whether the defendant was driving under his or her own power, and he was found to have no alcohol or drug on him.