Sunday, November 30, 2008

More California dui arrests over holiday?

California drunk driving criminal defense lawyers at California dui defense attorneys believe the California Highway Patrol is on pace to make more California dui drunken driving arrests statewide over the Thanksgiving holiday than last year.

In the Bay Area, there have already been more California dui arrests, according to the CHP. DUI-related fatal crashes have also surpassed last year's total in the state.

The special California dui enforcement period began at 6 p.m. Wednesday and will conclude Sunday, said CHP Sgt. Trent Cross.

Between 6 p.m. Wednesday and 6 a.m. Friday, there were 513 California dui arrests statewide. Last year, 618 arrests were made in all, Cross said. In the Bay Area's nine counties, the CHP made 82 California dui arrests in the four-day period last year. This year, there were 83 arrests through Friday morning.

"We have more officers out on the road this year," Cross said. "We also ... encourage people who see others driving in a dangerous manner to call 911."

One fatal collision has been reported in the Bay Area so far this year; there was one last year, Cross said.

Fatal crashes statewide by Friday had increased from 12 in 2007 to 15 this year, according to California dui attorneys

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Probable Cause to Detain a California DUI suspect?

California DUI criminal defense attorneys and California DUI lawyers may cite this case for a proposition that the mere fact
that information acquired by an arresting officer comes from a fellow
officer as a hearsay
statement not based on the latter's personal observations does not justify
the conclusion that
reliance thereon is reasonable in the absence of evidence showing that the
informant originally
transmitting the information to the police was reliable or that such
information had its source in
official police files or records. Absent the conditions indicated above,
such statements of a fellow
officer, being hearsay on hearsay, cannot by themselves constitute
reasonable cause or
reasonable grounds for police action of the kind here involved. (fn5)

People v. Pease [242 Cal.App.2d 442]
[Crim. No. 5190.
First Dist., Div. One.
May 25, 1966.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ETHEL PEASE et al., Defendants and Respondents.
[Crim. No. 5191.
First Dist., Div. One.
May 25, 1966.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ETHEL PEASE, Defendant and Respondent.
COUNSEL
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Derald E. Granberg, Edward P. O'Brien and Robert S.
Shuken, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Edward T. Mancuso, Public Defender, and James G. Magee, Deputy Public Defender, for
Defendants and Respondents.
OPINION
SULLIVAN, P. J.
These are appeals in two separate cases. In 1 Crim. 5190 defendants Ethel Pease, James B.
Valentine and Manuel B. Mattos were charged in an information with possession of a narcotic
(percodan). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500.) Their motion to set aside the information was granted
(Pen. Code, § 995) fn. 1 and the People appeal. In 1 Crim. 5191 defendant Ethel Pease alone
was charged in an information with two counts of receiving stolen property (§ 496). Her motion to
set aside the information was granted (§ 995) and the People appeal. All of the offenses were
charged as having been committed on January 6, 1965, arose out of the same incident and can
be set forth in a single statement of facts. fn. 2 Basically both cases present a single issue:
Whether on the occasion in question the forcible entry by the police was legally made and the
evidence thereafter seized by them legally secured.
At the preliminary hearing San Francisco Police Inspector Yasinitsky testified that on January 6,
1965, he and Inspector Webb went to the premises at 1845 Bush Street, San Francisco, because
they had received information from fellow officers Hurley and Dickson that William Bert Schindler,
a wanted felon for whom they had two arrest warrants, was living in room 5 of the flat there
located. They rang the front door bell and knocked on the front door but did not receive a reply.
They went around to the back, climbed the stairs to the second {Page 242 Cal.App.2d 444} floor,
knocked on the door and declared they were police. There was no reply. They then returned to
the front door, rang the doorbell and knocked loudly on the door. Although they could hear
footsteps above them they received no reply. Once more they proceeded to the back door where
they heard footsteps and voices. They declared they were police, demanded entrance and
threatened to break down the door if they were not admitted. There was still no reply.
The officers then tried to gently nudge the door open. They "heard what sounded like running,
hastily walking, hasty footsteps" and so Yasinitsky hit the door with his foot and caused it to open.
The door was barred with a 2 X 4 on the inside, but the officers made their way into the flat.
From the back porch they entered into the kitchen where they saw defendant Mattos standing by
the sink. Defendant Ethel Pease was also in the kitchen area and shortly thereafter Valentine
also entered that area from another room. The officers heard a toilet being flushed. They
identified themselves and asked where Schindler was.
Inspector Yasinitsky further testified that he continued through the kitchen to the living room while
Webb passed into an adjacent corridor. Immediately upon entering the living room Yasinitsky saw
in plain sight on a table an eye-dropper with a hypodermic needle attached, a honing stone, a
magnifying glass, alcohol, a tong, a spoon with a charred bottom and other narcotic users'
paraphernalia. On the table top was a residue of a yellowish paste "which looked like it was
wiped off"; some of the residue was also in a wastepaper basket. The above articles and yellow
substance were not immediately seized for the officers, hoping to find Schindler on the premises,
continued to make a search for him. They were later advised that he had moved from the flat that
morning.
Unsuccessful in finding Schindler, Yasinitsky and Webb proceeded to seize the paraphernalia on
the living room table. Yasinitsky wiped off the yellow residue and picked up the paste from the
wastepaper basket. Webb gathered up the refuse from the toilet where it was still swirling around
because that fixture was defective.
The officers then made a thorough search of the premises, uncovering the following: two yellow
pills (stipulated to be percodan) found in a case behind a vase in the living room; a case "with a
couple of bindles in it" found in the corridor; several hypodermic needles found in closets; "some
matter that looked like marijuana seed," burned spoons and hair-thin {Page 242 Cal.App.2d 445}
wires used to clean hypodermic needles, all found in a room near the back porch. Only the cache
of seed was seized from that room, however. In addition, the officers seized certain cancelled
checks, business cards, an address book and a checkbook belonging to two victims of auto
boostings. These items were found scattered throughout Mrs. Pease's bedroom. The officers
then placed defendants under arrest.
The motions to set aside the informations in both cases were heard and granted at the same
time. Basically the court's action rested upon a determination that the inspectors lacked
reasonable cause to believe that Schindler was on the Bush Street premises. The record
discloses that in reaching this conclusion the learned trial judge specifically rejected the district
attorney's contention that the fact that Inspector Yasinitsky had obtained his information about
Schindler from fellow officers constituted per se reasonable grounds for believing Schindler to be
in the flat and therefore justified their forcible entry. fn. 3 The Attorney General renews the same
contention before us. We have concluded that the trial court's rulings were correct and that the
orders made in both cases should be affirmed.
[1] Section 844 provides in pertinent part: "To make an arrest ... a peace-officer, may break open
the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have
reasonable grounds for believing him to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the
purpose for which admittance is desired." (Italics added.)
The term "reasonable grounds" as used in section 844 is the substantial equivalent of the terms
"reasonable cause" and "probable cause" as used in constitutional and statutory provisions
pertaining to the issuance of a search warrant (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 19;
§ 1525), an arrest without a warrant (§ 836), a commitment by a magistrate or an indictment by a
grand jury (§ 995). (See Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 478, fn. 6 [83 S.Ct.
407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441]; Draper v. United States (1959) 358 U.S. 307, 310, fn. 3 [79 S.Ct. 329, 3
L.Ed.2d 327]; United States v. Elgisser (2d Cir. 1964) 334 F.2d 103, 109; People v. Morfield
{Page 242 Cal.App.2d 446} (1964) 41 MisCal.2d 935 [246 N.Y.S.2d 451, 452].) fn. 4 The
standard or test of reasonable or probable cause applicable to all of the last mentioned situations,
namely, to the issuance of a search warrant, an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a
magistrate or an indictment by a grand jury is approximately the same (People v. Aday (1964)
226 Cal.App.2d 520, 532-533 [38 Cal.Rptr. 199], cert. denied 379 U.S. 931 [85 S.Ct. 329, 13
L.Ed.2d 343]; Williams v. Justice Court (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 87, 94 [40 Cal.Rptr. 724]; People
v. Govea (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 285, 296 [45 Cal.Rptr. 253]; Galena v. Municipal Court (1965)
237 Cal.App.2d 581, 586 [47 Cal.Rptr. 88]) fn. 5, that is, "such a state of facts as would lead a
man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion
of the guilt of the accused." (People v. Nagle (1944) 25 Cal.2d 216, 222 [153 P.2d 334]; in
accord: Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [42 Cal.Rptr. 838, 399 P.2d 374];
People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 fn. 6 [30 Cal.Rptr. 538, 381 P.2d 394]; Perry v.
Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 276, 283 [19 Cal.Rptr. 1, 368 P.2d 529]; Cotton v. Superior
Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 459, 462 [15 Cal.Rptr. 65, 364 P.2d 241]; Robison v. Superior Court
(1957) 49 Cal.2d 186, 188 [316 P.2d 1]; Rogers v. Superior Court (1955) 46 Cal.2d 3, 7-8 [291
P.2d 929]; Bompensiero v. Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 178, 183 [281 P.2d 250], cert.
denied, 349 U.S. 914 [75 S.Ct. 602, 99 L.Ed. 1248]; Callan v. Superior Court (1962) 204
Cal.App.2d 652, 661 [22 Cal.Rptr. 508].)
[2] Where reasonable cause is predicated on information communicated by others, evidence
must be presented justifying the conclusion that reliance on such information is reasonable.
(Willson v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 291, 294-295 [294 P.2d 36].) Thus we said in People
v. Brice (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 258, 265-266 [44 Cal.Rptr. 231], "It is settled that in the absence
of a pressing emergency, an arrest without a warrant may not be based solely upon information
received by the police from an informant not known to the arresting officers, {Page 242
Cal.App.2d 447} or if known, not known to be reliable. [Citations.]" fn. 7 In Galena v. Municipal
Court, supra, 237 Cal.App.2d 581, 587 we discussed probable cause in connection with the
issuance of a search warrant. In that case we said: "It is settled law that the requisite probable
cause 'may be based on information furnished by an informant if the supporting affidavit also
recites facts indicating that reliance on the information is reasonable. [Citations.]' (People v.
Keener, supra, 55 Cal.2d 714, 721 [12 Cal.Rptr. 859, 361 P.2d 587]; [citations fn. 8].) In other
words, the magistrate's finding of probable cause may rest upon the hearsay statement of the
informant 'so long as a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay is presented.' (Jones v. United
States (1960) 362 U.S. 257, 269 [80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, 707, 78 A.L.R.2d 233]; [citations
fn. 9].)"
[3] Just as in the foregoing situations, where an arrest is made without a warrant or a search
warrant is issued, the requisite reasonable or probable cause may be based on the hearsay
statement of an informant provided he is a reliable informant, so also in situations like the present
one, where forcible entry of a house is effected in order to make an arrest, the requisite
reasonable grounds for believing the person to be arrested to be inside may be based on the
hearsay statement of an informant provided he is a reliable informant. [4] Generally speaking, in
determining whether there are "reasonable grounds" within the meaning of section 844, as in
determining whether there is probable cause in the other situations above-mentioned, each case
must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. (See People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal.2d 407,
412 [2 Cal.Rptr. 4, 348 P.2d 577], cert. denied, 364 U.S. 841 [87 S.Ct. 79, 5 L.Ed.2d 65]; People
v. Brice, supra, 234 Cal.App.2d 258, 266; People v. Govea, supra, 235 Cal.App.2d 285, 297.)
{Page 242 Cal.App.2d 448}
In the instant case the only grounds which Inspectors Yasinitsky and Webb had for believing
Schindler to be in the house consisted of the information received by Yasinitsky from Officers
Dickson and Hurley to the effect that Schindler was living in room 5 of the flat. fn. 10 It does not
appear that the latter two officers obtained this information from official police files or by their
personal observation. Neither of said officers testified as to the source of their information or the
reliability of any original informant. How they "ascertained" what they told Yasinitsky does not
appear from the record. At the hearing of the motion to set aside the information the People took
the position that the inspectors were entitled to rely on the information merely because it
emanated from a fellow officer. Substantially the same argument is now made before us. It is
urged that the statements made by Dickson and Hurley to Yasinitsky constituted information from
an official source whose reliability must be presumed unless the contrary is shown. In support of
this position the Attorney General cites, among others, the decision of Division Two of this court
in People v. Schellin (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 245 [38 Cal.Rptr. 593], cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1003
[85 S.Ct. 726, 13 L.Ed.2d 704].
We think the present case falls more properly within the principle enunciated in the earlier case of
People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2d 516 [319 P.2d 689], also a decision of Division Two of
this court. There it was held that probable cause for an arrest was not established by the
testimony of the arresting officer that he had received certain information (leading to the
defendant's arrest) from his superior officer who had told his subordinate that he in turn had
received such information from a reliable informer. The superior officer was dead at the time of
trial and thus unable to testify as to the source of the information. The court said: "It seems clear
to us that if a superior police officer has reliable information which would justify him in making an
arrest himself, he can delegate the making of the arrest to a subordinate, and justify the arrest by
the subordinate by his (the superior's) knowledge. To permit the subordinate to justify the arrest
on the {Page 242 Cal.App.2d 449} superior's unsworn statement to the subordinate that the
superior has obtained information from another justifying the arrest, however, would permit police
officers to justify arrests by hearsay on hearsay, without requiring the sworn testimony of
anybody that the information upon which the arrest was made was actually given to any police
officer. To allow this would permit the manufacture of reasonable grounds for arrest within a
police department by one officer transmitting information purportedly received by him from an
informer to another officer who had not received such information from the informer, without
establishing under oath that the information had in fact been given to any officer by the informer,
or indeed that there was an informer at all. The possibilities of the phantom informer, if this were
to be permitted, are too obvious to need elaboration. (Cf. People v. Lawrence, 149 Cal.App.2d
435, 451 [308 P.2d 821].)" (Italics added.) (156 Cal.App.2d at pp. 523-524.)
This rationale is applicable to the facts of the present case. In essence the Attorney General
argues that the statement that Schindler was in the house was reliable merely because the other
officers made it. Such circumstance without more does not make the fellow officers an official
source or their statements official information. If this were so, every utterance of a police officer
would instantly and automatically acquire the dignity of official information; "reasonable cause" or
"reasonable grounds," as Harvey points out, could be conveniently fashioned out of a two- step
communication; and all Fourth Amendment safeguards would dissolve as a consequence. The
present case is distinguishable from those cases where the source of the information is official
police files or records (see People v. Stewart (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 176 [10 Cal.Rptr. 879],
arresting officer radioed police department for record check and advised of outstanding traffic
warrant; People v. Davis (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 517 [23 Cal.Rptr. 152], arresting officer acquired
information from vice detail files in sheriff's office; People v. Esters (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 917
[34 Cal.Rptr. 264], officers arresting for burglary relied on "Hot Sheet" issued by police
department for list of stolen property; People v. Schellin, supra, 227 Cal.App.2d 245, arresting
officer in Napa County relied in part on information from Intelligence Unit of Oakland Police
Department, fn. 11) or where {Page 242 Cal.App.2d 450} the source of the information is a
reliable informer and the arresting officer receives such information through a conduit of fellow
officers. (See People v. Hood (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 197 [309 P.2d 856]; People v. Melchor
(1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 685 [47 Cal.Rptr. 235].) In Melchor the crucial information came from the
reliable informant (a special police officer or patrol special officer) to the arresting police inspector
through the latter's fellow officers. We held that this did not prevent reliance on its trustworthiness
since it reached the arresting officer through the conduit of police channels and since the officers
first receiving and transmitting the information were reasonably entitled to rely upon the
informant. (People v. Melchor, supra, 237 Cal.App.2d 685, 690.)
[5] From the above authorities we think the following principle can be distilled: That the mere fact
that information acquired by an arresting officer comes from a fellow officer as a hearsay
statement not based on the latter's personal observations does not justify the conclusion that
reliance thereon is reasonable in the absence of evidence showing that the informant originally
transmitting the information to the police was reliable or that such information had its source in
official police files or records. Absent the conditions indicated above, such statements of a fellow
officer, being hearsay on hearsay, cannot by themselves constitute reasonable cause or
reasonable grounds for police action of the kind here involved. We conclude that the information
relied upon by the People in the instant case was insufficient to justify the forcible entry of the
premises.
We do not discuss the other cases cited by the Attorney General since they involve information
received from a reliable informant or other reliable sources and are thus distinguishable from the
case before us.
Finally, we point out that the trial judge granted the motions to set aside the informations "without
prejudice to ... [the People's] right to refile and establish probable cause." In view of the People's
apparent disinclination to do so, we can assume that the testimony found in the present record
constitutes in fact the strongest case which they can present. {Page 242 Cal.App.2d 451}
The order setting aside and dismissing the information in No. 5190 and the order setting aside
and dismissing the information in No. 5191 are, and each of them hereby is, affirmed.
Molinari, J., and Sims, J., concurred.
FN 1. Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Penal Code.
FN 2. The preliminary hearing on the charges against all three defendants was held before the
preliminary hearing on the charges against Ethel Pease alone. By stipulation the record in the
first preliminary hearing, consisting solely of the testimony of San Francisco Police Inspector
Yasinitsky, was made a part of the record of the second preliminary hearing. At this second
hearing Inspector Yasinitsky again testified; in addition the People called two other witnesses.
FN 3. The trial judge said: "I am bound by some rules and under the rules that exist, I think that
there should be some sort of a showing as to just what this information was, where they got it,
and who it came from. Otherwise, on this basis, anybody could tell a policeman anything about a
wanted felon being somewhere and that would give the police the right to go there and break
down the door."
FN 4. No reported California case has been cited to or discovered by us which expressly holds
that the above terms are substantial equivalents. It is to be noted that the term "reasonable
ground" (as distinguished from reasonable grounds) is used in relation to the issuance of an
arrest warrant by a magistrate (§§ 813, 1427).
FN 5. The terms "reasonable cause" and "probable cause" are themselves synonymous.
(Masterson v. Pig'n Whistle Corp. (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 323, 335 [326 P.2d 918].)
FN 6. Overruled on other grounds in People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 649 [36 Cal.Rptr.
201, 388 P.2d 33].
FN 7. Citing Willson v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.2d 291, 294-295; People v. Reeves (1964)
61 Cal.2d 268, 273 [38 Cal.Rptr. 1, 391 P.2d 393]; People v. Bates (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 847,
851 [330 P.2d 102]; People v. Burke (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 149, 155-156 [24 Cal.Rptr. 912];
People v. Swayze (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 476, 487 [34 Cal.Rptr. 5].)
FN 8. Citing Williams v. Justice Court, supra, 230 Cal.App.2d 87, 95-96; Dunn v. Municipal Court
(1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 858, 871 [34 Cal.Rptr. 25]; People v. Prieto (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 62, 69
[12 Cal.Rptr. 577]; People v. Perez (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 526, 532 [11 Cal.Rptr. 456].)
FN 9. Citing Rugendorf v. United States (1964) 376 U.S. 528, 533 [84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887,
891]; Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108, 114 [84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, 729]; United
States v. Ventresca (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 108 [85 S.Ct. 741, ___, 13 L.Ed.2d 684, 688-689].
FN 10. Yasinitsky testified: "Q. [By deputy district attorney] How did you have occasion to
respond to this location? A. We had information that a wanted felon for whom we had a warrant
and other warrants was living there in room 5 of that flat. ... Q. And what was the information you
had that Mr. Schindler was located on these premises? A. The information I received from Officer
Dickson and Officer Hurley. Mr. Schindler was accused of stealing and they ascertained that Mr.
Schindler indeed lived in that flat."
FN 11. The opinion states: "The Napa sheriff's office has been advised by Sergeant Dahl of the
Intelligence Unit of the Oakland Police Department that they had observed a vehicle with known
burglary suspects going north on the freeway on the evening of March 14. The information
supplied by the Oakland police was that two or three male subjects in a 1960 Nash Rambler were
intent on burglarizing a place that contained a safe on the highway north of Napa. The license
number of the vehicle was given." (227 Cal.App.2d at p. 247.)

Friday, November 28, 2008

California DUI arrests down Thanksgiving day weekend

Good news: California DUI criminal defense lawyers at California drunk driving criminal defense attorneys report that California drunk driving arrests in Los Angeles County by the California Highway Patrol were down significantly at the start of this Thanksgiving weekend, California DUI criminal defense lawyers at California drunk driving criminal defense attorneys said today.

On Wednesday, the first night of the CHP's maximum enforcement period during this holiday weekend, 49 people were arrested by CHP officers for driving drunk in Los Angeles County, California DUI criminal defense lawyers at California drunk driving criminal defense attorneys survey said.

Eighty arrests were made during the same 12-hour period one year ago, according to California DUI criminal defense lawyers and California drunk driving criminal defense attorneys.

This drop in DUI arrests may have greatly contributed to the lack of Los Angeles fatalities overnight in the CHP's jurisdiction.

Statewide, the numbers were not as dramatic, but the news is still good. According to the CHP arrests of DUI drivers were down more than 25 percent from 2007, with 237 arrests versus 318 last year, California DUI criminal defense lawyers and California drunk driving criminal defense attorneys said. Unfortunately, there were also five fatalities in the state overnight.

The California Highway Patrol's jurisdiction includes all state highways and county roads in unincorporated areas, but does not include most city surface streets.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net warn of Thanksgiving drunk driving enforcement

California DUI criminal defense lawyers and California DUI criminal defense attorneys report that tonight through Sunday night, the California Highway Patrol will deploy all available officers in Riverside County to crack down on drunken driving and other traffic violations as part of a statewide Thanksgiving holiday weekend enforcement campaign.
The CHP's “maximum enforcement period,” during which 80 percent of the agency's officers hit the streets, begins at 6 Wednesday night and wraps up at 11:59 p.m. Sunday.

Officers will ratchet up efforts to catch drunken or drug-impaired drivers and other motorists responsible for “primary collision factors” such as speeding and unsafe lane changes, according to the CHP.
“Thanksgiving is a time for us all to be thankful for what we have,” CHP Commissioner Joe Farrow said in a statement. “If fewer people lose their lives on our roads and highways, I will have something else to be truly thankful for.”

During last year's Thanksgiving MEP, four people died in two separate traffic collisions in the Riverside area, according to California DUI criminal defense lawyers.

She said officers from the CHP's Riverside office responded to 110 collisions, 35 of which involved injuries. Officers wrote a total 2,605 citations, including 957 speeding tickets, in the year-ago Thanksgiving holiday period, according to California DUI criminal defense lawyers. Thirty-eight people were arrested for drunken driving, California DUI criminal defense lawyers said.

Statewide, a total 1,628 people were arrested last year on suspicion of DUI – a 2.5 percent drop from the previous year, California DUI criminal defense lawyers showed.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

California DUI & DMV info provided by California DMV

California DUI criminal defense lawyers and California drunk driving criminal defense attorneys are often asked about how to find California DUI information on the California DMV website:

Arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI): General Information
I've just been arrested for DUI. What happens now?
At the time of my arrest, the officer confiscated my driver license. How do I get it back?
The officer issued me an Order of Suspension and Temporary License. What am I supposed to do with this document?
The Notice of Suspension that the officer gave me at the time of my arrest states I have ten days to request an administrative hearing. What is the purpose of this hearing and what can it do for me?
How long will my driving privilege be suspended if I took the chemical test?
Do I need a hearing to get a restricted driver license to go to and from work?
The officer stated I refused to take a chemical test. What does this mean?
How long will my driving privilege be suspended for not taking the chemical test?
How is the DMV suspension or revocation for the DUI arrest different from the suspension or revocation following my conviction in criminal court?
How can I find a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Program as ordered by the court?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've just been arrested for DUI. What happens now?
The officer is required by law to immediately forward a copy of the completed notice of suspension or revocation form and any driver license taken into possession, with a sworn report to the DMV. The DMV automatically conducts an administrative review that includes an examination of the officer's report, the suspension or revocation order, and any test results. If the suspension or revocation is upheld during the administrative review, you may request a hearing to contest the suspension or revocation.

You have the right to request a hearing from the DMV within 10 days of receipt of the suspension or revocation order. If the review shows there is no basis for the suspension or revocation, the action will be set aside. You will be notified by the DMV in writing only if the suspension or revocation is set aside following the administrative review.

Back to Top of Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the time of my arrest, the officer confiscated my driver license. How do I get it back?
Your driver license will be returned to you at the end of the suspension or revocation, provided you pay (on or after January 1, 2003) a $125 reissue fee to the DMV and you file proof of financial responsibility. The reissue fee remains at $100 if you were under age 21 and were suspended under the Zero Tolerance Law pursuant to Vehicle Code §§23136, 13353.1, 13388, 13392. If it is determined that there is not a basis for the suspension or revocation, your driver license will be issued or returned to you.

Back to Top of Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The officer issued me an Order of Suspension and Temporary License. What am I supposed to do with this document?
You may drive for 30 days from the date the order of suspension or revocation was issued, provided you have been issued a California driver license and your driver license is not expired, or your driving privilege is not suspended or revoked for some other reason.

Back to Top of Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Notice of Suspension that the officer gave me at the time of my arrest states I have ten days to request an administrative hearing. What is the purpose of this hearing and what can it do for me?
A hearing is your opportunity to show that the suspension or revocation is not justified.

Back to Top of Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For how long will my driving privilege be suspended if I took the chemical test?
If you are 21 years of age or older, took a blood or breath test, or (if applicable) a urine test, and the results showed 0.08% BAC or more:

A first offense will result in a 4-month suspension.
A second or subsequent offense within 10 years will result in a 1-year suspension.
If you are under 21 year of age, took a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test or other chemical test and results showed 0.01% BAC or more, your driving privilege will be suspended for 1 year.

Back to Top of Page


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I need a hearing to get a restricted license to go to and from work?
No. A request for a restricted license cannot be considered at the DMV hearing. You may apply for a restricted license to drive to and from work at any DMV field office.

Back to Top of Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The officer stated I refused to take a chemical test. What does this mean?
You are required by law to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol and/or drug content of your blood. You did not submit to or complete a blood or breath test after being requested to do so by a peace officer. As of January 1999, a urine test is no longer available unless:

The officer suspects you were driving under the influence of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol, or
Both the blood or breath tests are not available, or
You are a hemophiliac, or
You are taking anticoagulant medication in conjunction with a heart condition.
Back to Top of Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How long will my driving privilege be suspended for not taking the chemical test?
If you were 21 years of older at the time of arrest and you refused or failed to complete a blood or breath test, or (if applicable) a urine test:

A first offense will result in a 1-year suspension.
A second offense within 10 years will result in a 2-year revocation.
A third or subsequent offense within 10 years will result in a 3-year revocation.
If you were under 21 years of age at the time of being detained or arrested and you refused or failed to complete a PAS test or other chemical test:

A first offense will result in a 1-year suspension.
A second offense within 10 years will result in a 2-year revocation.
A third or subsequent offense within 10 years will result in a 3-year revocation.

How is the DMV suspension or revocation for the DUI arrest different from the suspension or revocation following my conviction in criminal court?
The DMV suspension or revocation is an administrative action taken against your driving privilege only. The suspension or revocation following a conviction in court is a mandatory action for which jail, fine, or other criminal penalty can be imposed.

California DUI criminal defense lawyers reference the above information.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Checkpoints in California good and bad

California DUI criminal defense attorneys and California drunk driving criminal defense lawyers hear South Lake Tahoe police arrested 14 people during a patrol for intoxicated drivers Friday.Five people were arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, six for driving without a license, two for not having children properly restrained in a car seat, and one for having an open container, according to Sgt. Shannon Laney.Five cars were also impounded, Laney said.The arrests took place during a “saturation patrol,” where extra officers are on the street looking for impaired drivers.Additional saturation patrols are expected into Fall 2009 as the result of a $67,000 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety for DUI suppression and education.The South Lake Tahoe Police Department received the state grant Oct. 1.

At the core of these abuses is the practice of racial profiling at the Pomona police checkpoints. The checkpoints are not being conducted in northern Pomona nor Phillips Ranch neighborhoods. More than 90 percent of the DUI checkpoints are being conducted in south Pomona, where a largely African-American/Hispanic, poor, and undocumented community resides.
We believe the checkpoints are but a pretext for stopping, harassing and discriminating against Pomona's large undocumented and poor community.
Furthermore, the Pomona Police Department Traffic Bureau has the idea that impounding vehicles for nonalcohol-related traffic violations is accomplishing state and federal guidelines for arresting drunk drivers. Their goals for funding are not consistent with the California Office and Traffic Safety funding guidelines.
More than 99 percent of impounded vehicles at Pomona DUI police checkpoints have been taken from families whose drivers were not drunk.
What kind of attitude will a Hispanic or African-American child have toward the Pomona Police Department when their parent's car is impounded and the family is left to fend for themselves, with no means of transportation for work, school, church or the grocery store? These unintended consequences resulting from DUI checkpoints have a qualitative negative impact on children and families adversely impacted by such police racial profiling.
Another checkpoint abuse is the time and locations in which the checkpoints have been conducted. DUI checkpoints have been set up near south Pomona schools when children are being released from school, inconveniencing families picking up their children.
Businesses are also impacted by the DUI checkpoints, most notably the recent cordoning off by Pomona police of Latino businesses such as the Cardenas Market on the corner of Lexington and Garey avenues. The Pomona business community has suffered significant unintended consequences too.
Finally, the overreaching police tactics employed during police checkpoints have brought fear into the hearts of families being chased into their driveways by Pomona police, as evidenced by the notorious May 3 checkpoint in south Pomona. Having more than 70 police officers at a checkpoint makes no sense when more serious crimes such as murders, assaults and robberies are being committed at the same time the checkpoints are being conducted. Criminals in Pomona may be choosing to commit crimes during Pomona DUI checkpoints.

Monday, November 24, 2008

California DUI may be a contributing factor at who is at fault in a collision

California DUI criminal defense lawyers and California dui criminal defense attorneys were posed this question:

Is it true that if a collision occurs when a vehicle is backing out of a parking-lot space at a store or business, the driver of that vehicle is at fault?

Some are aware of friends being involved in two incidents and their insurance companies claimed that's the rule. Even if the other driver runs into you after you started backing up and it's clear you couldn't see the other vehicle. This doesn't seem reasonable.

Answer from California Highway Patrol: Because most business parking areas are private property, many "rules of the road" or general driving laws don't apply in determining liability or fault in collisions, noting exceptions such as certain serious violations like driving under the influence and hit-and-run do apply on private property.

"Thus, there's no specific or automatic right-of-way or at-fault," he said. And the majority of collisions on private-property lots do not draw a police response and generally are not documented by law enforcement. The involved parties are left to deal with it themselves, exchanging names, numbers and insurance information."

In investigating collisions anywhere, most California Highway Patrol officers, are looking for "reasonableness."

Also, what insurance companies consider "fault" sometimes is different from what law enforcement officials determine.
"When some insurance companies dissect a collision due to a lawsuit, they often determine percentages of fault -- or better put, it's called 'responsibility' or 'liability,' " . "Car A is on a freeway at 60 miles an hour when traffic ahead stops suddenly," he said. "Driver A hits his brakes and stops a few feet behind other cars. Driver B, behind Driver A, slows and stops behind Driver B. But Driver C, who's behind Driver B, fails to stop in time and rear-ends B, pushing B into A. Law enforcement would list Driver C at fault. But insurance companies often will assign some degree of risk or liability to B because B's car actually hit and damaged A's car."

"There are no hard and fast rules that should place a person at-fault automatically in a collision anyway. "There have been collisions involving California DUI drivers who were not at-fault for causing the collision, but were found to be under the influence and charged with a California DUI, even though they did not err in driving at that specific time of the collision. Could the California DUI have been a contributing factor? Yes, but not the primary collision factor."

"Fault should depend on at what point the backing-up car was struck. If the backing car driver observed it was clear to back up, began the maneuver and suddenly a car turned into the isle of the backing car and struck the backing car, it probably would be the fault of the non-backing car. It also is dependent on the speeds and positions of both vehicles. And how far each was into the maneuver or movement. Fault is determined by many factors."

Sunday, November 23, 2008

California DUI / DMV Attorney Rick Mueller specializes in California DUI

San Diego California DUI / DMV Attorney Rick Mueller specializes in California DUI and DMV law.



California DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only California DMV - DUI attorney who was the featured Speaker at 7 DUI seminars in San Diego County California in the last several
years.



At an 8th seminar, California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California. The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller's presentation and materials were excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



San Diego California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru" by the Bar Association.




Specially recognized as a Contributor to the California Drunk Driving Law book, he is now the San Diego DUI Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as California's bible for DUI defense, authored by Ed Kuwatch, Paul Burglin and Barry Simons, the book features some of San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller's hard work.



San Diego California drunk driving lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association (formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.



San Diego California DUI Attorney Rick Mueller speaks at Strategies in Handling DUI Cases seminars, at the DUI & Drug Defense seminar at the San Diego Bar Building, at the North San Diego County Bar Association's Drunk Driving - DMV seminars, and at the Public Defender's Office DMV - DUI Training seminars. His California DMV - DUI work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. Since 1983, California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller has actively defended these cases. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is in Good Standing with the State Bar (#114305).



Get California dui Help through the California DUI "EVALUATION FORM"

Quality San Diego DMV - DUI legal representation: 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI
(1-800-843-5293)

Friday, November 21, 2008

California DUI curb efforts by San Luis Obispo California

California DUI criminal defense attorneys and California drunk driving criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUI.com are told Police will push to curb drinking and driving this holiday season by collective solidarity to reduce and eliminate drunk driving incidents in San Luis Obispo County. The countywide effort begins in earnest on Wednesday, Nov. 26 and culminates at midnight on Thursday, Jan. 1, New Year's Day.

California DUI representatives from local, county and state law enforcement agencies gathered in front of the Rotunda in Atascadero Thursday in a high profile show of collective solidarity to reduce and eliminate California DUI drunk driving incidents in San Luis Obispo County.

The countywide California DUI law enforcement and public awareness effort begins in earnest on Wednesday, Nov. 26 and culminates at midnight on Thursday, Jan. 1, New Year’s Day. Police and fire personnel, the California Highway Patrol and SLO County Sheriff’s deputies are requesting that community members report drivers who appear to be California DUI - intoxicated by calling 911.

Atascadero Police Department Chief Jim Mulhall said those drivers who are intoxicated would be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of California DUI law and those drivers who are determined not to be under the influence but have a medical emergency or other problem but perhaps are driving unsafely will get the help they need. He said the one exception to the cell phone law is when a driver calls in an emergency, including reporting a California DUI - drunk driving hazard.

“We want people to get on the phone and call 911 and the California Highway Patrol or a local law enforcement agency will respond to their request,” he said. “We want residents to provide a make and model of the vehicle and the route the driver is taking. We want them to become an observer of other drivers on the road. Their swift action can help other drivers stay safe and prevent an accident or a death. We have received state grants that enable us to tackle the issue by reducing the number of citizens endangered by those drinking alcohol and driving.”

SLO County DUI Task Force spokesperson Kim Mott said the county has mounted a concerted effort to turn the tide of California DUI - drunk driving incidents. She said a large part of the California DUI effort is prevention and public awareness.

“The Winter Holiday Kickoff will be disseminating information on how to report DUI drivers when dialing 911,” she said. “The kick-off will also be making sure the public is aware that local police departments, the Sheriff’s office and the California Highway Patrol will be leaning hard on drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs this holiday season as ‘AVOID the 14’ heads into its second Winter Holiday Crackdown.”

Mott said the county task force wants to warn county residents that the cost of a first-time DUI offense is $12,000 including the cost of the arrest, legal defense and other costs that mount in the aftermath of an arrest. She said law enforcement is encouraging residents to take more responsibility for their actions by remaining home or securing a safe ride home instead of ruining their holiday or that of an innocent bystander by committing a California DUI offense.

Mott said law enforcement wants to reverse the six-year trend countywide of increased DUI-related traffic collisions and fatalities during the holiday season and ensure that drivers countywide navigate through the holidays safely.

During the press conference, Mulhall outlined the winter mobilization and what important information is needed when they are calling 911 to report an impaired driver. He said police chiefs throughout the county meet monthly to insure they are making a concerted effort to address the California DUI drunk driving problem and other common law enforcement problems.

Mulhall said he hopes to see the same kind of partnership between community based organizations, businesses and schools to ensure that greater safety is preserved on the roads and highways countywide.

The agencies united in the “Avoid the 14” effort include the cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly and Cuesta College Police Departments.

The State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Highway Patrol, San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office and Probation Department are also members, along with SLO County Drug and Alcohol Services.

“The goal of the ‘Avoid the 14’ is to act as a deterrent to the crime of California DUI - driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug,” Mott said. “The ‘Avoid the 14’ wants to substantially reduce alcohol-related crashes, injuries and deaths in our community over the winter holiday season.”

The California Office of Traffic Safety’s mission is to obtain and effectively administer traffic safety grant funds to reduce deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from traffic-related collisions.

Mulhall said the state OTS grant, which has been in existence since the 1970s, has enabled local and countywide law enforcement to maintain its zero-tolerance policy toward drunk driving from Thanksgiving through New Year’s Day and pay for necessary police overtime hours, saturation enforcement and California DUI checkpoints that make the general population safer on the roads and highways throughout the county without encumbering the general funds from cities or counties or taking police officers off their regular beat.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer in California options, consultation

California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer information provided by a top California Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Attorney for those accused of a California DUI.



California DUI help for San Diego California DUI court and San Diego California DMV. Complete California DUI Help to save your California license or other state license.



California DWI Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller is a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Criminal Defense Attorney with over 24 years of experience. Known as the San Diego California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.



California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Muellerhas been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



California DUI Criminal Defense Consultation & Evaluation at http://www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey.html for your best California DUI defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege, as has been done for many good people who necessarily become San Diego California DUI Clients.






http://www.yahoo.com



For more information about a DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer in California:

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer


San Diego DUI Criminal Defense


California DUI Criminal Defense Attorney


San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Help



http://www.google.com

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

California dui checkpoint thursday

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingattorney.net/about are asked about this California DUI checkpoint on Thursday.

The California Maritime Academy Police and Public Safety Department will conduct a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint Thursday in conjunction with the Vallejo Police Department, according to a CMA announcement.

The California DUI checkpoint will be held from 7 p.m. to midnight at an undisclosed location within Vallejo, according to the announce-ment. It's part of an effort to reduce the number of people killed and injured in alcohol-involved crashes, said CMA police chief Roseann Richard.

California DUI Checkpoints are conducted to identify offenders and get them off the street as well as educate the public on the dangers of impaired driving, she said.

Traffic volume and weather permitting, all vehicles may be checked and drivers who are found to be California DUI - under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs will be arrested, Richard said.


For more information by a California DUI Lawyer:

California DUI Lawyer


California DUI


California DUI Attorney


California DUI Help





http://www.google.com


http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html

Monday, November 17, 2008

Heather Locklear charged with California DUI - drugs

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoduihelp.com and California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com report that Heather Locklear has been charged with a misdemeanor California DUI - driving under the influence in connection with her arrest in September.

Heather Locklear has been charged with driving under the influence of presciption medications stemming from her September arrest.

Santa Barbara District Attorney's office filed the complaint Monday, alleging that Locklear was driving under the influence of drugs, "to wit: prescription medications," Sept. 27, the day she was arrested.

That was when a celebrity news reporter called 911 to report that Locklear appeared to be driving drunk, and then took photographs of the actress' California DUI arrest.

Jill Ishkanian, a former reporter and editor at Us Weekly magazine, called police the night of Sept. 27, saying Locklear appeared intoxicated, after what Ishkanian's lawyer, Nick Tepper, described as a chance encounter with Locklear in a Montecito, Calif., market. He denied that Ishkanian was following Locklear or that she set up the star to be arrested and photographed.

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles are often asked about finding a qualified DUI attorney

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles are often asked about finding a qualified California DUI criminal defense attorney.

How can you know if you found a qualified California DUI Lawyer for yourself?

Various types of lawyers handle California DUI drunk driving cases, including California public defenders, general practitioners, criminal defense lawyers, and California DUI Specialist attorneys.

Some excellent questions to begin asking when searching for a California DUI lawyer are:

What are his California DUI attorney's qualifications?

Is he a Specialist member of the California DUI Lawyers Association?

How long has he been a member of the National College for DUI Defense?

Does he teach other attorneys in California how to handle DUI cases?

Is he a Contributing Editor to the Bible for California DUI Defense - California Drunk Driving Law?

Was he recently asked by recognized author / California DUI trial attorney Donald Bartell to be a Contributing Editor/Author to the hottest new DUI book: Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests?

Does he maintain a library of DUI materials, books, manuals, studies, memos, points & authorities and documents solely designed to help a person accused of a San Diego County DUI?

How much of his practice is DUI Defense?

Is he quick and thorough when responding to emailed questions or concerns?

Whether or not you ultimately end up hiring a California DUI Specialist Attorney with 24 years of experience, it is a smart idea to look closely at the credentials of a California DUI Specialist lawyer in this highly complex field.

You can read more - Why use California's Specialist in DUI and DMV Law http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html .

Sunday, November 16, 2008

California DUI checkpoint in San Jose

The San Jose Police Department sponsored a California DUI sobriety and driver's license checkpoint Friday at an undisclosed location.

California DUI Officers conducted the California DUI checkpoint from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. Depending on traffic and weather conditions, all vehicles may be stopped, California DUI police said.

The Police Department periodically conducts California DUI and driver's license checkpoints in a program funded by a California DUI grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, police said.


Click for more information about a California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer who is on your side:

California DUI Lawyer


California DUI


California DUI Attorney


California DUI Help



California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended informed the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegodui.com and California dui criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net Q

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegodui.com and California dui criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net are often asked questions:

What is a California DUI or California drunk driving?

California DUI, or California driving under the influence, is when a person operates a motor vehicle while intoxicated. In the state of California, it is illegal for any individual to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of 1) drugs; or 2) alcohol; or both. It is also illegal for any individual to drive with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher. If an individual violates either of the aforementioned laws, he/she can be arrested for and charged with California driving under the influence (DUI).

What causes California DUI law enforcement make a traffic stop?

California law enforcement will usually make a California DUI traffic stop when they have reason to suspect that a person is driving under the influence due to the person’s erratic driving behaviors (excessive speeding, slowing down, making wrong turns, swerving, weaving, etc.).

Do I have to consent to the hand-held California DUI breath test when stopped by law enforcement?

No. According to California law, breath tests are voluntary, which means that you have the right to refuse to take the hand-held California preliminary screening test/breath test during a traffic stop. However, the breath and blood tests that are administered at the police station, jail and sometimes trunk of the vehicle (not the hand-held) are not voluntary, which means you must consent to testing.

Can I refuse to take the California DUI field sobriety tests?

Yes. According to California law, field sobriety tests are voluntary, which means that you have the right to refuse to consent to the tests. In fact, you are better off refusing to take these tests as they are not very accurate at determining if a person is intoxicated and are also very easy to fail due to a variety of reasons.

What should I do if I have been arrested for California DUI?

If you have been arrested for DUI, you should seek immediate legal counsel from a reputable California DUI defense attorney. An experienced California DUI lawyer will do everything he/she can to get involved from the very beginning, usually right after you have been arrested. By getting involved from the start, an attorney can provide you with sound advice, direction, and aggressive representation through every stage of the California DUI process.

Why should I hire a California DUI defense attorney?

After you have been charged with California DUI, you face a variety of serious legal consequences if you are convicted, including: jail time, fines, community service, probation, DUI school, court ordered counseling, and the loss of your driver’s license. With the legal penalties being so great, you cannot afford to be without representation from an attorney who is extremely knowledgeable in California DUI law, and who has successfully represented numerous other California DUI clients. When you work with a DUI defense attorney, you have a much greater chance of obtaining a victorious outcome both in California dui court and at your California DMV Hearings.



San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help

Friday, November 14, 2008

California DMV Guru, California DUI Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller

California DUI Defense Attorney Specialist Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated California Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense lawyer with over 24 years of experience.

Known as California DMV Guru, California DUI Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates all of his law practice to aggressively defending those accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. He has successfully saved the driving privileges of many clients in California. http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/



California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended informed the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



Complete the important Free California DUI DMV & Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html



Click on this California DUI Criminal Defense Attorney list, or to contact a California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer:

California DUI Lawyer


California DUI


California DUI Attorney


California DUI Help







http://www.google.com


http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html


http://www.yahoo.com

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Attorney who specializes in DUI cases

California DUI Lawyer information provided by a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Attorney for those accused of a California DUI.



Comprehensive California DUI help for San Diego California DUI court and San Diego California DMV. Complete San Diego California DUI Help to save your California license or other state license.



California DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 24 years of experience. Known as the San Diego California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.



California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



Simply complete the Free California Drunk Driving & California DUI Evaluation at http://www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey.html for your best San Diego California DUI defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege, as has been done for many good people who necessarily become San Diego California DUI Clients.






http://www.yahoo.com



For more information or to contact a California DUI Lawyer:

California DUI Lawyer


California DUI


California DUI Attorney


California DUI Help

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

MADDening interlock news from California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/blog

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/blog and California Drunk Driving criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey are told Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) joins California Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) in support of lifesaving legislation that would require convicted drunk drivers to use alcohol ignition interlocks to prevent them from continuing to drive drunk. According to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Californians are sharing the road with 310,971 convicted drunk drivers with three or more DUI convictions and 44,210 of those people have five or more convictions. Interlocks are proven to reduce repeat drunk driving offenses by an average of 64 percent.

“MADD thanks Assemblyman Mike Feuer for his leadership and determination to protect Californians from drunk drivers on California roads,” said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD. “The DOT data of repeat offenders in California should concern the public, who needs to demand a solution. The California legislature must do something to protect the public and stop California’s ‘catch and release’ program on drunk driving.”

At a town hall meeting held Nov. 11 at the North Hollywood High School, MADD, Assemblyman Feuer and the California Highway Patrol covered drunk driving trends in California and the importance of alcohol ignition interlocks in protecting Californians from this preventable crime.

In 2008, Assemblyman Mike Feuer introduced AB 2784, a bill mandating interlocks for all offenders. The bill passed out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and was amended into an optional, discretionary bill once it reached the Assembly Appropriations Committee. MADD is continuing to push for mandatory interlock legislation in California, which could save hundreds of lives in California.

While there were 204,015 DUI arrests in California in 2007, there are approximately 6,000 interlocks currently installed on vehicles in the state. Nationally, there were nearly 1.5 million arrests for drunk driving last year and only 146,000 interlocks are currently installed. “This is a big gap, that MADD aims to close,” added Dean-Mooney. Research shows people typically drive drunk more than 87 times before they are ever arrested and most have an alcohol dependency issue upon first arrest. “Interlocks stop this revolving door,” she said. MADD supports legislation to require ignition interlocks for all DUI offenders in California. Currently, eight states have this legislation. MADD believes that with our grassroots support, California can join these leaders.

"One of the top priorities of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has always been to remove drunk drivers from our roads. As the chairperson of the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County (POALAC) Traffic Committee, we have partnered with Mothers Against Drunk Driving in its effort to Eliminate Drunk Driving," said Bill Dance, captain of the California Highway Patrol. "The CHP along with the other law enforcement agencies of POALAC that participate in the "Avoid the 100" anti-DUI program, are dedicated to the mission of arresting DUI drivers before they injure or kill innocent people. There are too many repeat offenders still driving under the influence putting our citizens and families on the road at risk. We fully support Assemblyman Feuer and MADD with their efforts to keep the repeat offenders off of our streets and highways."

Kath Robi along with her daughter Jennifer spoke at the event. Both were severely injured when a drunk driver with three prior DUI convictions crashed into their car on April 27, 2007. Although the driver had three prior DUI convictions before this new felony charge, she was sentenced to only 90 days in the county jail.

After years of enforcing the law as officers in the Los Angeles Police Department, the Robi family can’t understand how the law can ignore repeat DUI offenses. Jennifer’s dad, Paul, is a Detective II with the LAPD's Bomb Squad. Her brother, Christopher, is an LAPD police officer, and her mom is a retired LAPD officer.

“We need stronger laws,” said Kath Robi. “The hammer needs to fall on these people. This is outrageous!”

Drunk driving is the nation’s most frequently committed violent crime – resulting in 1,155 deaths and thousands of injuries in California alone in 2007.

Alcohol ignition interlocks, paid for by the convicted drunk driver, are a breath test device linked to a vehicle’s ignition system. When a convicted drunk driver wishes to start his or her vehicle, he or she must first blow into the device, but the vehicle will not start if the driver has alcohol in his or her system.

MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving calls for intensive high-visibility law enforcement and full implementation of alcohol ignition interlocks. MADD’s mission is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking. Founded in 1980, MADD has helped save more than 330,000 lives. For more information, visit www.madd.org.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

0 California DUI arrests in Yolo California DUI crackdown

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net report that California DUI authorities stopped more than 100 motorists in Davis and surrounding areas during a California DUI saturation patrol Saturday, but didn't arrest any California DUI drunk drivers.

California DUI Officers from several Yolo County law enforcement agencies conducted the special patrol during the Causeway Classic football game between University of California, Davis, and California State University, Sacramento.

California DUI Officers stopped 116 vehicles, put five drivers through the California DUI field sobriety test, issued 12 citations for vehicle code violations and didn't arrest any drunken drivers, according to California DUI defense attorneys.

The California DUI patrol was part of the "Avoid the Eight" program, funded with a grant from the state Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The California Highway Patrol conducted a California DUI enforcement in the Woodland area from Saturday night and made 33 California DUI drunk driving arrests.

What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a California DUI or California Drunk Driving charge

What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a California DUI or California Drunk Driving charge

10. If you need to save your driver's license or privileges, your California DUI or California Drunk Driving attorney has only ten (10) calendar days to contact DMV!



Do not schedule yourself. If you contact DMV to schedule a date conflicting with your California DUI or California Drunk Driving attorney's calendar, DMV will not reschedule and you may not get the attorney of your choice. There is no rush as long as your California DUI or California Drunk Driving attorney contacts DMV by the 10th day from your arrest.



9. The ten (10) day time limit is computed from the Issue date of the SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. If time is running out or you are late, contact a California DUI or California Drunk Driving attorney ASAP.



8. This ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is the California DMV paper which you should have received.



7. Even if you did not receive this DMV paper, the California DMV will probably take action against your driving privileges.



6. Even if you have a license from another state, and even if the officer did not take your license, that state may also take action against your driving privileges.



5. This TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE ENDORSEMENT is valid for only thirty (30) days from the issue date.



If a DMV hearing is requested within ten (10) days, your DMV TEMPORARY will be extended & there will be a stay (delay) of any suspension until the outcome of your DMV hearing is determined.



4. Do not confuse this initial 30 day TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE with your court date!

The DMV and criminal proceedings are separate and independent. The outcome of one almost never affects the other. Sometimes the officer or the DMV paper confuses or misleads you to believe that the TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is good "until the court date". If there are approximately thirty (30) days from your arrest date to your court date, this may just be a dangerous coincidence. There usually are months before your DMV hearing takes place.



3. There are three (3) issues at the hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of DMV paper.)



Issues are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you or whether the chemical test evidence is beatable by your California DUI or California Drunk Driving defense lawyer.



2. The DMV has the burden of proof to prevail on all three (3) issues. If DMV meets the burden of proof on two (2) issues, you win!



1. All a California DUI or California Drunk Driving or DMV attorney has to do is knock out one (1) DMV issue to save your license & you avoid any reissue fee and/or Proof of Insurance SR-22 filing!






See below sites for more information or to contact a California DUI or California Drunk Driving Lawyer:

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help

Monday, November 10, 2008

All States watching Intoxilyzer 8000 litigation in Arizona / San Diego uses the 8000 in DUI cases

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoduilawyer.com/blog and California drunk driving criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles tell about a dozen years ago, 3,000 drunken-driving prosecutions in Tucson were dismissed in one day - about 5,000 cases within a few months - because the breath-test device that said the drivers were drunk was deemed unreliable.

Those numbers could easily be surpassed if one of the current alcohol detectors in Arizona, the Intoxilyzer 8000, is found to be unreliable, a leading driving under the influence defense attorney said.

"This is going to be huge," said Tucson lawyer James Nesci, because the current machine is widely used statewide as opposed to the older device, which was used in Tucson and at a smaller agency.

In 2007 and so far this year, Tucson police have made 5,963 DUI arrests, though not all of those resulted from using the Intoxilyzer. Tucson police started using the 8000 model Dec. 1, 2006.

The statewide DUI Taskforce, which does special enforcement work around the state during holiday weekends, made nearly 9,000 DUI arrests in 2007.

Most Arizona law-enforcement agencies use the Intoxilyzer 8000, experts said. Neither the state Department of Public Safety nor the Governor's Office of Highway Safety claimed to know how many agencies use the device; spokesmen at each agency referred a reporter to the other agency.

According to CMI Inc. documents filed by prosecutors, eight states, three police departments and one other governmental agency use the Intoxilyzer 8000. It is approved for use in six other states and three other governmental agencies. CMI is the Owensboro, Ky., maker of the Intoxilyzer 8000,

Nesci said thousands of DUI convictions could be overturned on appeal if the device is found faulty. Nesci's work in the 1990s led to the previous dismissals.

Nesci has donated his time to challenge the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 alcohol detector on behalf of 23 defendants in separate Pima County Superior Court cases.

Judge Deborah Bernini gave CMI Inc. until Monday to turn over the software source code in an electronic form.

Despite court orders across the country, CMI has declined to divulge the code, which defense attorneys say will show that the device is error-prone. The company has racked up more than $1 million in fines by refusing to comply with a similar Florida court order, records show.

CMI President Toby Hall didn't return phone calls for comment. When Bernini first ordered CMI to release the code, Nesci said a process server couldn't get Hall to accept the court order.

Last month, Bernini told prosecutors to get the source code from CMI.

Deputy County Attorney Robin Schwartz told Bernini that she didn't think the state could force CMI to reveal the code.

Bernini also set a Nov. 24 hearing for Hall to appear and explain why she shouldn't hold him and CMI in contempt for refusing to comply with her orders.

CMI has said it will give up the code, on paper, if the recipient signs a nondisclosure agreement, which defense attorneys refuse to do.

"The software has been tested by (the Arizona Department of Public Safety) and the federal government a bazillion times, all kinds of tests, and it's been found to be fine," Chief Criminal Deputy County Attorney David Berkman said.

Bernini denied a stay so prosecutors could appeal her order that they obtain the code, but Berkman said the office will file a special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals in the hopes Bernini's order will be overturned.

While Bernini expressed concern why CMI was not cooperating, "from an ethical standpoint, we're not concerned," Berkman said.

Dozens of DUI cases have been thrown out in local courts because of CMI's refusal to hand over the source code. Several city court judges and county justices of the peace have tossed out the breath-test evidence, which in turn led to prosecutors dismissing the charges.

Recent events echo those in the mid-1990s when defense attorneys challenged the integrity of the RBT IV breath test machine, manufactured by Intoximeters Inc., based in St. Louis. Prosecutors eventually agreed that the device was faulty, which led to 3,000 cases being dismissed at once in 1997 and the total number thrown out about 5,000, Nesci said.

"But this is going to be bigger than the RBT IV," which was only used in Tucson and by a few other agencies statewide, Nesci said.

The Tucson Police Department declined to comment for this article because the Intoxilyzer 8000 case is being litigated.

While the Pima County Sheriff's Department chose to rely on field blood tests to determine blood alcohol content, Tucson police replaced the RBT IV with an older version of the 8000, CMI's Intoxilyzer 5000, which had been shelved.

When the Intoxilyzer 8000 came out, Nesci said, cops everywhere liked it because it was lighter than the clunky 5000 model, which wasn't designed to be mobile. The 8000 could be plugged into the patrol car's dash, unlike the 5000, which was hooked to a converter or generator in the car's trunk.

Defense attorneys are curious, Nesci said, about the versions of software CMI gave DPS for testing and for release on the streets.

CMI customizes software codes for each state, depending on liquor laws and specifications for breath testing.

DPS tested version 8000.00, Nesci said.

"Once that was approved, those machines left the state," Nesci said.

The version first put on the streets was 8000.44, Nesci said.

"We want to know how versions .41, .42. and .43 were different from the one approved," Nesci said.

"Then they switched to version .45 almost immediately," Nesci said.

The version now used is .46.

"Now we have a .47 sitting in a crime lab in Phoenix," Nesci said.

CMI President Hall testified in another local case that there were problems with the .46 version that were corrected, Nesci said.

"You'd think if there were problems with software that were big enough to have been corrected, they would need to tell the people who tested the defective software," Nesci said.

"But nobody was ever notified there were problems," Nesci said.

Bernini seems to be perplexed as to why CMI hasn't been more forthcoming, at least as far as the cases before her are concerned.

"Every lawyer in this room should be concerned about CMI's unwillingness to follow the court's order," the judge said last month.

Nesci and other defense attorneys see CMI's obstinacy as a defensive cover-up.

Hall said previously that CMI is protecting trade secrets.

"Their refusal to disclose the software is kind of a mystery to me," said John Fusco, president of CMI rival National Patent Analytical Systems of Mansfield, Ohio.

"Saying it's a trade secret doesn't get me anywhere," Fusco said.

"All software, for the most part, is very hardware specific," Fusco said. "Their software really can't be used unless another manufacturer is willing to duplicate their hardware."

Fusco, who once was a sales representative for CMI, said the Intoxilyzer's technology isn't as novel as the company touts it to be.

"It's been around for 30 years," Fusco said.

Fusco said he's often asked for software to his DataMaster alcohol breath detector.

"It's a real pain," Fusco said.

But Fusco complies and even conducts seminars twice a year for defense attorneys wanting to know more about his product.

When asked for the software, Fusco sends a letter detailing the specifics, which includes the code in digital format for $350, which covers services to reproduce the compact disc.

Fusco said he rarely hears back from defense attorneys.

"What they want is for me to say 'no,' " Fusco said.

Fusco said the costs of expert analysis of the software, upward of $100,000, is often too prohibitive for defense attorneys.

If there is a legitimate problem with the code, Fusco said, NPAS will fix it.

NPAS also reviews results of outside analysis to ensure truthful testimony in court cases, he said.

CMI has told defense attorneys it will provide its source code on paper but Fusco said it is "completely useless in hardback."

Nesci and law partner Joseph P. St. Louis said the Pima County cases will hold up on appeal, unlike cases in other states.

"I don't think any other state has duplicated what we've seen here," St. Louis said. "All the judges (here) are saying this needs to be produced or there will be consequences.

"All the other states are watching us to see what happens next."

Sunday, November 9, 2008

What to look for in a California DUI criminal defense lawyer?

How can you find a qualified California DUI Lawyer?

Various types of California lawyers handle California drunk driving cases, including California public defenders, California general practitioners, California criminal defense lawyers, and California DUI Specialist attorneys.



A California County public defender is a California attorney provided at little or no cost to provide defense services to people who financially are unable to hire a private California lawyer. Most California County Districts generally do not offer public defenders services unless you are unemployed, significantly under-employed and/or have no assets.



Some excellent questions to begin asking when searching for a California DUI lawyer are:



What are his or her California DUI attorney's qualifications?



Is he or she a Specialist member of the California DUI Lawyers Association?



Is he or she a member of the National College for DUI Defense?



Whether or not you ultimately end up hiring a California DUI Specialist attorney, it is a smart idea to speak to a California DUI Specialist lawyer in this highly complex field.



Read more -Why use California's Specialist in DUI and DMV Law http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html .


Try a Free California DUI Evaluation at http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/survey.html .





California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended informed the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. This California DUI criminal defense lawyer has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



For more information about a California DUI Lawyer's ability to assist:

California DUI Lawyer


California DUI


California DUI Attorney


California DUI Help

Saturday, November 8, 2008

California DUI courts must sentence properly & give credits

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey and California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/penalty report a new case:

Filed 10/23/08 P. v. Jackson-Reynolds CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

APRIL DAWN JACKSON-REYNOLDS,

Defendant and Appellant.
H032834
(Santa Cruz County
Super. Ct. No. F15327)
Defendant April Dawn Jackson-Reynolds pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of .15 or greater (count 1) and driving with a license suspended for driving under the influence (count 2). The trial court sentenced her to 10 years in prison for the conviction on count 1 and one concurrent year for the conviction on count 2. The trial court awarded defendant 339 days credit for actual time served and 139 days for conduct credit. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) sentencing her to one year rather than six months for count 2, and (2) awarding her 139 days rather than 168 days for conduct credit. The People concede the issues. We agree that the concessions are appropriate. We therefore modify the judgment and affirm.
COUNT 2
A person convicted of count 2 for the first time shall be punished “by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 10 days or more than six months . . . .” (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (d)(1).) A person convicted of count 2 within five years of a prior conviction (or of other specified offenses) shall be punished “by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days or more than one year . . . .” (Id., subd. (d)(2).)
The parties agree that there is no evidence in the record that defendant had suffered a prior for purposes of Vehicle Code section 14601.2, subdivision (d)(2). The one-year sentence should therefore be a six-month sentence.
CONDUCT CREDIT
The formula for conduct credits is to divide the actual credits by four (without accounting for a remainder) and multiply that product by two. (People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1283.) Dividing 339 by 4 yields 84; 84 times 2 yields 168.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified as follows: defendant’s sentence on count 2 shall be six months; local conduct credits shall be 168 making the total credits amount to 507. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.




Premo, J.


WE CONCUR:




Rushing, P.J.




Elia, J.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Intense weekend California DUI enforcement by County Sheriff's Department, Yolo and the Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, Woodland and UC Davis police

California DUI / Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/about warn that California DUI authorities will be targeting California DUI drunk drivers in Sacramento and Yolo counties this weekend.

Sacramento police will hold a California DUI sobriety and drivers license checkpoint today in the south area of the city.

California DUI Police will be checking for California DUI / drunken and drug-impaired drivers, and also checking to ensure motorists have valid drivers licenses, a police news release states.

The California DUI program is funded by a grant from the state Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The "Avoid the Eight" DUI Enforcement Task Force also will be conducting an intense California DUI - drunken driving saturation patrol Saturday.

The California DUI patrol will be from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday, during the Causeway Classic football game between UC Davis and Sacramento State, a Davis Police news release states.

California DUI Officers will target California DUI - drunken drivers in and around Davis.

Participating California DUI agencies include the California Highway Patrol, Yolo County Sheriff's Department, Yolo County Probation Department, and the Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, Woodland and UC Davis police departments.

The California DUI patrol is part of the DUI "Avoid" campaign, which is funded through a grant from the state Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Safety Administration.

For more information about the California DUI Avoid program, go to www.californiaavoid.org or www.SanDiegodui.com.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

DUI tests by Intoxilyzer thrown out by Judge

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at the San Diego County DUI Law Center of www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net and California drunk driving criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUI.com are told today that a Florida judge has thrown out the alcohol breath-test results of seven DUI defendants because law enforcement did not inspect the equipment after a repair.

After an Intoxilyzer 8000 machine was repaired, authorities failed to inspect it, as required by FDLE rules, for six months.The ruling could pave the way to invalidating about 100 other breath test results from South County DUI defendants, because authorities did not inspect the equipment for six months after the March repair.

"It's for seven people, but every breath test on that machine, between those dates, is no good," said Venice defense attorney Robert Harrison, who fought for the ruling.

The error means prosecutors will not be able to tell juries about the defendants' blood-alcohol content, considered the most powerful piece of evidence against drunken drivers.

Drivers are considered impaired if their blood-alcohol content, or BAC, is more than 0.08 percent. Drivers blow into a tube and the Intoxilyzer 8000 analyzes their breath to determine a BAC.

The seven defendants in this case registered BACs as high as 0.23 percent, or nearly three times the intoxicated level.

But the Florida Department of Law Enforcement rules say a repaired Intoxilyzer 8000 has to be inspected before it can be used to collect evidence against a driver.

This machine, number 1346, had a problem with its dry gas regulator, which is needed for the control tests before and after the driver's breath test.

Without the dry gas regulator, the machine will not work. FDLE replaced the dry gas regulator on March 5, but did not conduct an inspection.

Because of that, the breath tests violated the state's implied consent law, which requires licensed drivers to consent to a breath test if stopped under suspicion of DUI, County Judge Phyllis Galen ruled.

Prosecutors and law enforcement argued that replacing the regulator was maintenance, not a repair, and therefore did not require an official inspection.

Galen's ruling called that argument "unreasonable."

The Sheriff's Office, which maintains the equipment, said it disagreed with the ruling and hopes prosecutors will appeal the decision.

The BAC is not the only evidence against drunken drivers, so the ruling does not mean the charges will be dropped automatically.

Harrison has long led the fight against alcohol breath-test machines in Sarasota County. He said fines against CMI Inc., the Kentucky-based manufacturer of the Intoxilyzers, have now surpassed $2 million in a fight over access to the computer code inside the machines.


San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 24 years of experience. Known as the San Diego California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.



San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



Simply complete the Free San Diego California DUI Evaluation at http://www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey.html for your best San Diego California DUI defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege, as has been done for many good people who necessarily become San Diego California DUI Clients.






http://www.yahoo.com



See the below for more information or to contact a California DUI Lawyer who can help:

San Diego California DUI Lawyer


San Diego California DUI


California DUI Attorney


California DUI Help

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

California DUI laws & resources for a California DUI attorney with a defense

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles and California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/about say if you are pulled over and accused of drunk driving in the state of California, you will need to act quickly. Your right to drive is at stake. One of the first things you need to do after your arrest is file an appeal for a hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles to argue for your license. Many drivers choose to work with an attorney to ensure that they file this request properly. If you do not file this appeal within 10 days of your arrest, your license will automatically be suspended. The suspension will take effect 30 days after your DUI arrest. A first-time offender will have a 6-month license suspension. Restricted licenses are available for some individuals.

You can be arrested for DUI in California based on your blood alcohol content (BAC) or your driving pattern at the time you are pulled over. In California it is illegal to drive with a BAC of .08% or higher.

California drivers face strict consequences under the state’s current DUI laws. First time offenders may have to attend an alcohol and drug prevention program. The fines total about $2,000, depending on the details of the California DUI case. DUI offenders can spend between 48 hours and 6 months in jail. Probation is a possibility for some offenders. Ignition interlock, vehicle impound, public work service, trash detail, volunteer work and other enhancements are a possibility.

To learn more about a California DUI call 1 800 THE LAW DUI.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

9 year old injured in California DUI golf cart accident, dad arrested

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles are told a Fairfield California man is facing charges after his nine-year-old son was injured in a golf-cart accident.

California DUI Officers arrested 51-year-old Douglas Cyr on suspicion of California DUI / drunk driving and other charges Friday night after witnesses reported he had collided with a vehicle, causing a boy to fall out of the cart.

Police say during their California DUI investigation, officers determined Cyr had hit two parked cars and fled the scene.

Cyr was arrested at his home, according to California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUI.com. No report yet on his golf score that day.