Thursday, July 17, 2014
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Doctor with 2 California DUI convictions may be legally responsible for Junior Seau's death, say lawyers
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2059678#ixzz37gbrlNC4
Monday, July 14, 2014
San Diego California DUI Cops Gear Up for Del Mar Races Opening Day July 17 2014, attorneys warn
Opening Day is historically one of the busiest in San Diego and California. A scary number of San Diego DUI deputies and CHP cops will look for drunk drivers, DUI attorneys warn.
San Diego DUI lawyers are alerting any and all motorists near Del Mar California as San Diego DUI cops will be in full force looking for possible drunk drivers.
Last year, California DUI cops fished for drunk drivers everywhere and arrested 10. Some people were stopped for nothing, San Diego criminal defense attorneys proved.
San Diego Police Department, San Diego California sheriff's Department, National City Police Department, Chula Vista Police Department, Escondido Police Department, La Mesa Police Department, San Diego State University Police Department, and University of California San Diego Police Department, step up drunk driving patrols in a major way as their DUI Enforcement Patrol crack down on DUI at the annual Del Mar Race Track Opening Day.
San Diego Sheriff's Department publicly announces that all who attend the Del Mar Races this season should have a good time but think of your best designated driver option or route before you leave the races and drive a vehicle in San Diego California Thursday, DUI lawyers warn.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
National Law Proposed Requiring Ignition Interlock Devices in every state for every one convicted of DUI, San Diego California attorneys warn
Yet, MADD presses on and forces its views on federal law makers who now want a mandate that all states require DUI probationers to install an IID for at least 6 months. Today is the day the House learns about this proposed DUI - IID law which would make every person convicted of California DUI to put an IID in his or her vehicle, rather than the best, optional form of San Diego California DUI punishment for judges, lawyers believe.
California DMV has IID provisions for multiple offenders. A number of Judges in downtown San Diego frequently require an IID for a person convicted of DUI when the BAC is .15% or more.
The anti- DUI propaganda in favor of MADD's push may be overstated and is not what is best. With little scientific DUI - related facts as a basis, MADD expediently offers on alternative "compilation studies" which speculatively claim to save lives and over-inflated DUI costs in such a way that simple thinking public may somehow believe this latest drunk driving law idea may be well-founded.
It remains to be seen if Congress' members buy into this DUI measure which would force states to adopt or lose federal transportation funding, a scheme previously implemented to lower states' BAC threshold limit to .08%. There's no reason to make DUI a federal issue, as states are the best at and quite capable of governing themselves.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
9 arrests at 4200 Mission Bay Drive San Diego California DUI Checkpoint, delaying over 3,000 motorists, lawyers share
July 05, 2014 8:30 p.m. - Sunday at 2:00 a.m., California's San Diego AVOID the 16 Task Force staged a DUI Checkpoint for southbound traffic in the 4200 Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, California, attorneys warned.
San Diego California DUI Law Enforcement Officers from the California Highway Patrol, Escondido Police Department, La Mesa Police Department, National City Police Department, San Diego County Probation, San Diego Police Department, San Diego Sheriff's Department, and University of California San Diego Police Department, contacted and screened in the primary San Diego California DUI checkpoint inspection area, trapping 1,125 drivers.
There were a total of 3,186 vehicles that were trapped by the San Diego California DUI checkpoint, say lawyers.
San Diego California DUI Officers sent 18 vehicles to the secondary screening area so the drivers could be evaluated for drugs and/or alcohol.
9 drivers were arrested for San Diego California DUI -driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and 1 driver was arrested for driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and drugs. All 10 were went to San Diego County jail. 8 vehicles towed from the San Diego California DUI checkpoint.
This San Diego California DUI checkpoint was funded by a grant obtained through the California Office of Traffic Safety. The stated public intent of this San Diego California DUI checkpoint was to educate the public of the dangers associated with drinking and driving.
Authorities expediently claim this San Diego California DUI checkpoint serves as a deterrent to potentially impaired drivers. The Office of Traffic Safety and local law enforcement want everyone to report San Diego California DUI drunk drivers and call 911.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Cops precluded from searching cell phone of DUI or other criminal arrestee, California DUI attorneys share
RILEY v. CALIFORNIA
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE
No. 13–132. Argued April 29, 2014—Decided June 25, 2014*
In No. 13–132, petitioner Riley was stopped for a traffic violation,which eventually led to his arrest on weapons charges. An officer searching Riley incident to the arrest seized a cell phone from Riley’s pants pocket. The officer accessed information on the phone and noticed the repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. At the police station two hours later, a detective specializing in gangs further examined the phone’s digital contents. Based in part on photographs and videos that the detective found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier and sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership.Riley moved to suppress all evidence that the police had obtained from his cell phone. The trial court denied the motion, and Riley was convicted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. In No. 13–212, respondent Wurie was arrested after police observed him participate in an apparent drug sale. At the police station, the officers seized a cell phone from Wurie’s person and noticed that the phone was receiving multiple calls from a source identified as “my house” on its external screen. The officers opened the phone, accessed its call log, determined the number associated with the “my house” label, and traced that number to what they suspected was Wurie’s apartment. They secured a search warrant and found drugs,was then charged with drug and firearm offenses.
He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the apartment. The District Court denied the motion, and Wurie was convicted. The First Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and vacated the relevant convictions.
Held: The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital
information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been
arrested. Pp. 5–28.
(a) A warrantless search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific
exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. See
Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. The well-established exception
at issue here applies when a warrantless search is conducted incident
to a lawful arrest.
Three related precedents govern the extent to which officers may
search property found on or near an arrestee. Chimel v. California,
395 U. S. 752, requires that a search incident to arrest be limited to
the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, where it is justified
by the interests in officer safety and in preventing evidence destruction.
In United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, the Court applied
the Chimel analysis to a search of a cigarette pack found on the arrestee’s
person. It held that the risks identified in Chimel are present
in all custodial arrests, 414 U. S., at 235, even when there is no
specific concern about the loss of evidence or the threat to officers in a
particular case, id., at 236. The trilogy concludes with Arizona v.
Gant, 556 U. S. 332, which permits searches of a car where the arrestee
is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger
compartment, or where it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the
crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle, id., at 343. Pp. 5–8.
(b) The Court declines to extend Robinson’s categorical rule to
searches of data stored on cell phones. Absent more precise guidance
from the founding era, the Court generally determines whether to exempt
a given type of search from the warrant requirement “by assessing,
on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s
privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Wyoming v.Houghton, 526 U. S. 295, 300. That balance of interests supported
the search incident to arrest exception in Robinson. But a search of
digital information on a cell phone does not further the government
interests identified in Chimel, and implicates substantially greater
individual privacy interests than a brief physical search. Pp. 8–22.
(1) The digital data stored on cell phones does not present either
Chimel risk. Pp. 10–15.
(i) Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a
weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape.
Officers may examine the phone’s physical aspects to ensure
that it will not be used as a weapon, but the data on the phone can
endanger no one.To the extent that a search of cell phone data might warn officers of an impending danger, e.g., that the arrestee’s confederates are headed to the scene, such a concern is better addressed through consideration of case-specific exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances. See, e.g., Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 298–299. Pp. 10–12.
(ii) The United States and California raise concerns about the destruction of evidence, arguing that, even if the cell phone is physically secure, information on the cell phone remains vulnerable to remote wiping and data encryption. As an initial matter, those broad concerns are distinct from Chimel’s focus on a defendant who responds to arrest by trying to conceal or destroy evidence within his reach. The briefing also gives little indication that either problem is prevalent or that the opportunity to perform a search incident to arrest would be an effective solution. And, at least as to remote wiping, law enforcement currently has some technologies of its own for combatting the loss of evidence. Finally, law enforcement’s remaining concerns in a particular case might be addressed by responding in a targeted manner to urgent threats of remote wiping, see Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. ___, ___, or by taking action to disable a phone’s locking mechanism in order to secure the scene, see Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U. S. 326, 331–333. Pp. 12–15.
(2) A conclusion that inspecting the contents of an arrestee’s pockets works no substantial additional intrusion on privacy beyond the arrest itself may make sense as applied to physical items, butmore substantial privacy interests are at stake when digital data is involved. Pp. 15–22.
(i) Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee’s person. Notably, modern cell phones have an immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy.
But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences.
First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record.
Second, the phone’s capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible.
Third, data on the phone can date back for years. In addition, an element of pervasiveness characterizes cell phones but not physical records. A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives. Pp. 17–
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Pacific Beach San Diego California DUI Checkpoint pops 14, lawyers announce
At the standard 2600 Ingraham Street Pacific Beach San Diego DUI checkpoint location from 11 pm to 3 am June 21 and 22, over 1,000 vehicles were subject to this Nazi Germany style of trapping drivers who could not see the staged trap until after going over the bridge.
Because there were just fourteen arrests for San Diego DUI, there was about a 1.4% chance of a California DUI arrest. That almost a 5 times better chance of busting someone for Drunk Driving in the PB Area of San Diego County, lawyers convert.
PB's DUI cops detained 29 drivers for "sobriety evaluation" while impounding 15 cars.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
DUI Death is the worst, California DUI attorneys agree
2 stories over the weekend both resulted in DUI deaths in California, San Diego attorneys learned today.
A Riverside daughter ran over her father after she left the house following an argument and he tried to prevent her from driving. She hit him, realized it and just sobbed as he died afterwards. What a way to start father's day weekend.
A former substance abuse counselor maintained someone jumped on her hood, causing her to panic, driving 2 miles as the body was wedged in the windshield. Other motorists boxed her in. Twice the legal limit, with two prior felony strikes, she was sentenced to 55 years to life for second degree murder and continuing to drive.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Lucky Bieber gets DUI & Resisting arrest charges dropped after drag racing
The day before, California felony cellphone theft charges were determined not to be filed by the District Attorney's Office. Los Angeles City Attorney may still bring misdemeanor charges after Justin allegedly grabbed a cellphone out of a fan's mother's handbag upon catching her photographing him at a Sherman Oaks California arcade. No witness corroborated the charge after she filed a police report.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
San Diego DUI Checkpoints in Oceanside & Pacific Beach trap California motorists resulting in numerous drunk driving arrests, attorneys warn
California DUI Roadblocks made nineteen drunk driving arrests in San Diego County over the weekend from Pacific Beach to Oceanside & National City.
The lead "flavor of the month" California DUI Checkpoint location from 11 pm to 3 am is at 2700 Garnet Ave., another reason to avoid Pacific Beach San Diego on a Weekend night. If you avoid that location, they have an alternative which can also be found here near the Mission Bay High School.
Oceanside has been doing back to back California DUI checkpoints, with this weekend's roadblock from 9:30 pm to 1:30 am at Oceanside Blvd and Vine in San Diego County, lawyers are told.
National City sprouted a California drunk driving roadblock at 2600 Highland looking for happy-hour home seekers from 6 pm to 1 a.m, attorneys relate.