Sunday, May 31, 2009

Why is Orange County wasting time & money on a Tuesday California DUI Checkpoint?

Isn't a tuesday like the one weekday when no one goes out?

Taxpapers pay for police fund drunk driving roadblocks in California but does the required extra manpower and overtime come from the state or local tax revenues?

Costa Mesa California police are having a DUI checkpoint Tuesday from 6 p.m. to midnight. The question is why? Or huh?

This off-night California DUI checkpoint will form a barrier on eastbound Baker Street east of Bear Street. Naturally, MADD will litter the street with their car crash trailer, overstating the potentially dangerous aftermath for someone who even lawfully chooses to drink and drive (without being over .08 BAC).

Trying to set a record as this scheduled checkpoint is the 5th in 2 months? Costa Mesa had a couple of drunk driving checkpoints last month and the month before but were they on a Tuesday? . They arrested just 4 drivers for DUI on Friday May 22 checkpoint so one must wonder if they will arrest any California dui drivers on a Tuesday.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Orange and LA Counties disclose DUI Checkpoints Saturday Night, May 30, 2009 - careful! Make sure the cops play by the rules

Checkpoints this weekend in Orange County and LA County, beginning in Surf City on Beach Blvd, S. of Slater Ave. Saturday at 9 p.m. to 3 a.m., Huntington Beach California DUI / Drunk Driving officers will focus on fishing for and catching drunk drivers. The California DUI / Drunk Driving roadblock will be clearly marked and vehicles will be selected for checking on a some purported selection basis. It is important that the California Supreme Court checkpoint rules and guidelines are followed.

California DUI / Drunk Driving officers will distribute informational brochures on impaired driving to motorists. Law enforcement will check driver's licenses and direct suspected impaired drivers to a secondary check area for a full-blown California DUI / Drunk Driving evaluation.

The California DUI / Drunk Driving checkpoint is funded through a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety and unlimited fund assistance through MADD.

The Pomona Police Department will conduct a California DUI / Drunk Driving checkpoint Saturday from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. Sunday. Cars will be checked and drivers found to be California DUI / Drunk Driving will be arrested. California DUI / Drunk Driving officers will also patrol the city in a search to meet their California DUI / Drunk Driving quota.

California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Revisit breath test defenses in California on new subpage of DUI defense attorney Rick Mueller - important update from Minnesota - cases thrown out!

In light of the hanky panky in Minnesota, it's time to revisit California breath test defenses. Below is a sample of the drunk driving breath machine defenses website update found on the San Diego County DUI Law Center home page:

- Failure of California DUI police to do continuous observation of breath test subject for entire 15 minutes before first breath sample. Police allow cessation or interruption in continuity of fifteen minute observation of person tested prior to initial blow sample.

a)Police officer often improperly attempts to include transportation time as part of required 15 minute observation period. San Diego area breath test given within a few minutes of arrival at breath test location.

b) Officer required by law to remain in presence of subject and be able to use all of his/her senses (sight, sound and smell) to properly and logically conduct a true observation during the 15 minutes before test.

c) Observation means a realistic ability to perceive by actually paying attention to subject during the continuous 15 minute period.

d) California DUI officer who purports to observe while driving fails to tilt mirror in order to be able to see subject in backseat or who fails to stay with subject.

e) Patrol car has dispatch radio on, emitting noises and interfering with officer’s ability to hear what subject is doing while in the moving vehicle.

f) DUI officer goes to the trunk upon arrival at breath test location often to put gun away, or walks around before removing subject from police car, or leaves subject alone at anytime during the 15 minutes before blowing - e.g. use of restroom or telephone, or placed in holding cell or area outside presence of the California DUI officer.

- During the important 15 minutes before the San Diego DUI breath test, you have a slight burp, belch or regurgitation of gas.

- Drinking, burping, belching, vomiting or regurgitation of gas within 15 minutes of test, and with no rinsing of mouth, or inadequate deprivation period before the breath test.

What happened in Minnesota is their Supreme Court specifically held that the State of Minnesota is in possession of the source code for the machines and required the State produce the source code to the defendant within 30 days. But the state failed to do so. The court in turn threw out the breath test evidence.

Facing a DUI in Minnesota after a breath test? You probably have a legal defense based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the
case. It's complicated law, so you may want to to contact a drunk driving defense lawyer who understands what to do there.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

"High Profile" DUI stories for California - Angels Pitcher & Police Detective Drunk Driving Updates

The California DUI driver was indicted Wednesday on murder charges in a car crash that killed twenty-two year-old Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart and 2 others, and injured another in April.

The Orange County grand jury indicted Andrew Thomas Gallo on charges of alleged murder, hit-and-run and California DUI which happened hours after the talented young baseball player pitched one of his best major league games. The defendant's BAC is allegedly .19%. He allegedly ran a red light and broadsided a car driven by Courtney Stewart, 20. Stewart was also killed as was Henry Pearson, a Manhattan Beach law student.

In northern California DUI news, a police detective in Merced has been arrested for allegedly a second DUI arrest in less than six months. Hector Ortiz alleged rear-ended another car near Merced College and then arrested for drunk driving.

Ortiz was arrested back in January. The police officer was given a California DUI sobriety test. His BAC is allegedly double the .08% limit.

If you want an opinion on a California DUI case, visit San Diego County DUI Law Center's Free Evaluation.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

DUI Resource Center for California - Help is not far away if arrested for a San Diego Drunk Driving Charge

Thorough San Diego DUI Lawyer information provided by San Diego County DUI Law Center's Drunk Driving Attorney for those accused of a San Diego California DUI. Trouble-free San Diego DUI help for San Diego DUI court and San Diego DMV. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated San Diego Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego DUI & DMV Defense Attorney with 25 years of experience. Known as a California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego 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: Free Evaluation for your best San Diego DUI defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege, as has been done for many good people who necessarily become Clients.

Contact a San Diego California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer who can help or visit below sites:

Video of San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney

San Diego DUI Lawyer Resource Center

San Diego California DUI Info

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Kiefer is proof Canadians don't get deported for criminal or DUI problems

Kiefer is in trouble Jack Bauer-style. The star of 24 may not have been sure on May 4, 2009 if he still thought he was Jack Bauer or the real Kiefer at the time Kiefer butted Jack McCollough, a fashion designer, with Kiefer's head. It's the latest in a line of infamous antics by the Canadian actor: funny, bizarre yet serious. "Jack" says he was coming to the defense of Brooke Shields after McCollough interrupted their conversation; Shields says nothing out of sort happened. And now Sutherland has been charged with assault. Signs perhaps point to alcohol as the catalyst behind the Sutherland head-butt, including a photo where the star appears red-faced and bleary-eyed complete with a cigarette dangling from his mouth. Maybe the biggest tip off that the actor might have been intoxicated is what occurred earlier that evening: Sutherland was seen "acting totally crazy" while dancing "feverishly" and twirling people about, all while wearing a giant feather boa. Court is on June 22.

Rehashing his past, Kiefer spent 48 days in jail in 2007 and was handed five years probation after pleading guilty to drunk driving. Sutherland was pulled over after making an illegal U-turn, his blood alcohol level more than three times above the drink-driving limit in California. "Jack" was already on probation for another drinking and driving offence in 2004. In 1989 and 1993, "Jack" plead guilty to "reckless driving" charges. In both of those cases, "Jack" was charged with a California DUI, but the DUI charges were dismissed.

In 24, Jack appears poised to be saved by his daughter.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Caught in the Crazy CHP California DUI enforcement system? Strict rules must be adhered to when it comes to checkpoints

300 drivers were arrested in the Bay Area for allegedly California DUI - driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs between midnight Friday and midnight Saturday, according to California DUI lawyers.

The California DUI information may help those arrested as a result of local law enforcement saturation to keep Bay Area roads safe during Memorial Day weekend.

The 125 California DUI law enforcement agencies arrested a total of 276 drivers, up from 254 arrests during at the same time in 2008.

Maximum California DUI Enforcement Period for the CHP, with 80% of the state’s force out patrolling the roadways through Monday, May 25.

During the 2008 Memorial Day weekend, 38 people died on California highways, CHP officers arrested 1,450 drivers for California DUI during the Memorial Day weekend.

The CHP’s maximum enforcement effort is part of the state’s recently launched 2009 Memorial Day “Next Generation Click It or Ticket” mobilization. The California Drunk Driving campaign is supported by by what appears to be unlimited money including $3 million.

Norco deputies conducted a California DUI/Driver’s License Safety Checkpoint on May 23, 2009. The California DUI checkpoint is subject to strict California Supreme Court rules and began at 6:00 p.m. and ended on May 24, 2009, at 2:00 a.m. The checkpoint was located on Hamner Avenue and Hidden Valley Avenue, in the City of Norco.

Five hundred and ninety of the 987 drivers who entered the California DUI checkpoint were screened. Ten drivers were given Field Sobriety Tests, which resulted in 3 drivers being arrested for driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and/or drugs.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Differences between DUI attorneys in California and DUI lawyers in San Diego

If you have been arrested or cited for a California DUI or drunk driving offense that occurred in the San Diego area, you need the best California DUI attorney available to defend your San Diego California drunk driving case. An experienced San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney will provide the most thorough investigation and professional handling of your case from start to finish. With a goal to protect your legal rights and reduce penalties to the minimum, you San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer will keep you advised every step of the way.

In order to properly defend your San Diego California DUI case and give you the best chance to get back to your life, it is important to seek San Diego California DUI legal representation immediately.

Retaining top San Diego California drunk driving legal representation will ensure any necessary bail posting as soon as possible to reduce initial San Diego jail time.

The best San Diego California DUI defense attorney will investigate all San Diego drunk driving arrests to ensure that the client’s legal rights were preserved and the San Diego county police officer following proper San Diego procedure.

If your San Diego DUI criminal lawyer identifies an illegal action or misconduct by the San Diego police officer, it could be grounds for San Diego DUI case dismissal.

However, if all proper San Diego procedures were followed - an unlikely event - your San Diego DUI attorney will nonetheless defend your San Diego drunk driving case to the most professional extent.

A first San Diego DUI / drunk driving offense is the best opportunity for your San Diego DUI defense lawyer to vigorously defend and to request a reduced San Diego DUI sentencing.

A premier San Diego DUI attorney will be one with over 24 years of experience and expertise in San Diego California drunk driving cases. Excellent San Diego court outcomes and satisfied clients will also be illustrative of the talent of your San Diego DUI / drunk driving criminal attorney.

San Diego DUI law firms provide free initial consultation to learn more about your case.

On May 30, 2009, Rick is scheduled to speak at the Annual DUI Seminar in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. San Diego 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 informed the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent.

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

All a 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!

Video of San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney

Click to contact San Diego DUI Attorneys

San Diego DUI Attorney

Friday, May 22, 2009

California Highway Patrol plans on "Kicking Ass and Taking Names" - be careful of DUI Checkpoints & Cops Everywhere!

California's "ass-kickin'" Highway Patrol plans to fully enforce DUI & traffic laws this holiday weekend. A Maximum California DUI Enforcement Period is now in effect. Warning: all available CHP officers will be patrolling California’s roadways.

Highway officers plan on implementing increased California DUI enforcement of traffic laws from Friday evening through Monday at midnight. Reason: People tend to drink and drive and "go crazy" more on the holidays.

As a part of maximum law enforcement, CHP Public Information indicates California DUI checkpoints will be established. They'd be crazy to tell us where. “A checkpoint is somewhat confidential up until the point it will happen,” a CHP California DUI cop says.

One thing is clear. Even the a**-kickin' Chippers have to follow the stringent guidelines of a lawful California DUI checkpoint; otherwise California DUI lawyers like San Diego Drunk Driving Defense Attorney Rick Mueller and many other California DUI Lawyers Association members will be there to help fight convictions and license suspensions!

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Despite all the DUI "traps" this Memorial Day, drivers have distinct rights as the drunk driving checkpoints must follow specific rules

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) will be in full force looking to remove all drunk drivers from our roadways throughout the state during the upcoming Memorial Day holiday weekend. The three-day weekend is a Maximum California DUI Enforcement Period (MEP) for the CHP. All available DUI officers will be out patrolling the roadways during the MEP, which begins Friday, May 22 at 6 P.M. and extending until midnight Monday, May 25.

California roadblocks may not be used unless they comply with rigid California DUI checkpoint standards set forth by the California Supreme Court. If you feel violated contact San Diego DUI lawyer Rick Mueller.

Alameda County law enforcement officials are reminding drivers that if they plan to drink during Memorial Day weekend, that they need to designate a sober driver to take them home.

To make sure that advice is heeded, there will be California DUI sobriety checkpoints in Livermore, Berkeley and Newark over the weekend.

The Avoid the 21 program will also include stepped up California DUI patrols by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office and Alameda, Albany, Fremont, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro and BART police departments within their own jurisdictions.

The South Lake Tahoe Police Department and the California Highway Patrol will conduct a DUI checkpoint on Friday from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. as officers will be randomly screening drivers for signs of impairment at the checkpoint with the undisclosed location. This California DUI checkpoint will be followed by saturation patrols on May 23, 24, and 25 where extra officers will lookout for intoxicated drivers on an in pre-designated areas.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

What happens if You Cannot Provide a Blow on the California DUI breath test, for 1 reason or another? What happens if cop suspects drugs?

In California, it is important to not be considered a "Refusal" in a DUI case as your license can be suspended for a very long time (with no restriction) and mandatory jail is required if convicted.

So if you have trouble blowing or can't provide a good enough breath sample upon being arrested for drunk driving in California, here's what you need to know:

The Vehicle code states that if one is "incapable" of completing a test then he must submit to the other available test. VC §23612(a)(2)(A):

If the person is lawfully arrested for driving under the
influence of an alcoholic beverage, the person has the choice of
whether the test shall be of his or her blood or breath and the
officer shall advise the person that he or she has that choice. If
the person arrested either is incapable, or states that he or she is
incapable, of completing the chosen test, the person shall submit to
the remaining test. If a blood or breath test, or both, are
unavailable, then paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.

Also see People v. Gary Allen Sugarman, (2002) 96 Cal. App.4th 210,
Butler v. Department of Motor Vehicles, (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 913,
Buchanan v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 293, and
McConville v. Alexis, (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 593.

What if the California DUI investigating officer thinks I may be "on drugs?"

California law states what is required for the blood test in addition to a breath test is VC 23612(a)(2)(C):

A person who chooses to submit to a breath test may also be
requested to submit to a blood or urine test if the officer has
reasonable cause to believe that the person was driving under the
influence of a drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic
beverage and a drug and if the officer has a clear indication that a
blood or urine test will reveal evidence of the person being under
the influence. The officer shall state in his or her report the facts
upon which that belief and that clear indication are based.

Here comes the Checkpoints & DUI "Saturation Patrols" for Memorial Weekend - Careful when driving

The nightmare called "California DUI checkpoints" will surface this Memorial day weekend. California DUI law enforcement throughout the State and San Bernardino County will be combining resources and sending out a unified message this Memorial Day weekend to holiday travelers, college graduates, partying neighbors and communities enjoying local festivities that drunk driving won’t be tolerated. If you drive drunk, California DUI cops will be looking for you. If you’re over the limit, you will be arrested.

California DUI Task Force will be staffing an "Avoid the 25" California drunk driving checkpoint in Victorville this weekend. California DUI Saturation Patrols will be deployed on overtime statewise and countywide, targeting those who still don’t heed the message to designate a sober driver before the celebrations begin.

The California DUI enforcement campaign begins Saturday night with a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint in the city of Victorville. Special DUI Saturation Patrols will be deployed in Hesperia, Apple Valley, and Adelanto. Additionally, local DUI Saturation Patrols will be out on the holiday weekend in numerous other cities in San Bernardino County. The California Highway Patrol is deploying 80% of all available officers Memorial Day weekend onto freeways and county roads in their jurisdiction. California Drunk Driving crackdowns are planned for the Independence Day weekend and during the National Summer DUI Mobilization effort Mid-August through Labor Day weekend.

An experienced California Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer can analyze and investigate your DUI case to determine your best strategy or tactic. Contact a premier California DUI attorney today at 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI for a free consultation.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Odor of alcohol alone does not reach the level of probable cause for a DUI arrest or drunk driving conviction

Drinking and driving is not illegal in California or any other state. Is an odor of alcohol sufficient probable cause to allow California police to arrest for drunk drivng so that a California DUI lawyer must defend against a blood or breath test?

What one smells on the drinker's breath are the aromatic materials which give to each type of beverage its characteristic odor; one may recognize a beer, wine, gin, or other beverage odor--but not an alcohol breath. While alcohol rapidly disappears from the mouth after ingestion, the aromatic materials of the beverages, like those of other foods, linger and are detectable for a relatively long time. The breath odor after drinking is, therefore, unrelated to the alcohol content of the blood and is a poor indicator of the alcoholic state of the individual. 4 R. Gray, M.D. & L. Gordy, M.D., L.L.B., Attorneys' Textbook of Medicine ¶¶ 133.10 (3rd ed. 1985).

Various jurisdictions have addressed this issue.

The Georgia Courts have decided the probable cause necessary for an arrest for driving under the influence in the case of Griggs v. State, 167 Ga. App. 582 (1983):
As to question of whether the arrest of defendant, for the offense of driving under the influence, was made with probable cause, we turn to the standards set forth in Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.E.2d 142. See also Vaughn v. State, 247 Ga. 136, 137, 274 S.E.2d 479. Whether the arrest was constitutionally valid depends in turn upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it -- whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, supra. The question is whether the investigating deputy at the time of defendant's arrest had knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information that: (1) defendant was in actual physical control of a moving vehicle; (2) while under the influence of any drug; (3) to a degree which renders defendant incapable of driving safely.

New Jersey has remotely addressed this issue in a published opinion is the Appellate Division in Gustavson v. Gaynor, 206 N.J. Super. 540 (App. Div. 1985), certif. den. 103 N.J. 476 (1986). That court held that the mere fact that a driver had consumed some alcoholic beverages is, by itself, insufficient to warrant an inference that the driver was intoxicated and that the intoxication was of such a degree as to render him unfit to drive at the time of the accident in that matter. Id. at 545. As a result, that information was precluded from the finder of fact.

Since New Jersey does not prohibit driving an automobile after consuming intoxicants, the odor of alcohol cannot reasonably and objectively provide probable cause to believe that the driver is under the influence of alcohol. To conclude otherwise is to hold that conduct which is totally lawful is, without more, evidence of an offense sufficient to warrant arrest. Were this true, then violation of the concept of "zero tolerance" would be the standard necessary to arrest. What the officer possibly could have done, but did not do, was to continue an investigation of DUI to determine whether a probable cause existed for the arrest. His sole evidence and reason for arresting the defendant was the odor of alcohol and that is not enough. There is no correlation whatsoever between the odor of alcohol on a person's breath and their blood alcohol level.

In Clay v. State, 193 Ga. App. 379 (1989), the Georgia Court of Appeals (in reversing the defendant's conviction) stated "the mere fact that he (the defendant) had an odor of alcohol on his breath clearly was not sufficient, in and of itself, to give rise to an inference that he was intoxicated. Indeed the state's attorney conceded as much at trial, stating, "Certainly the smell of alcohol by itself is not an indication, but it can be an indication that somebody had been drinking..." Under the circumstances, we must conclude that the officer's opinion that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive was without evidentiary foundation.

This issue has also been addressed by a number of other state's courts. Beginning with State v. Taylor, 3 Ohio App. 3d 197, 198 (1981), Ohio has a long line of cases specifically stating that the odor of alcohol (even when combined with other factors) does not provide probable cause to make an arrest. In one of the more recent cases, State v. Segi, No. 18267 (Ohio App. District 2), dated August 18, 2000, the arresting officer testified that the defendant Segi was arrested because he crossed the white line edge marker three times, he admitted to consuming alcohol, and had a "strong odor" of alcohol about him. Reversing the trial court's denial of Segi's motion to suppress, the Ohio Appellate Court states,

Odor of an alcoholic is insufficient, by itself, to trigger a reasonable suspicion of DUI, and nominal traffic violations, being common to virtually every driver, add nothing of significance. .. The law prohibits drunk driving, not driving after a drink... Smelling too drunk to drive, without other reliable indicia of intoxication is not enough to constitute probable cause to arrest.

The Court of Appeals of Alaska has stated this fact situation much more succinctly: "The mere odor of alcohol about a driver's person.... maybe indicia of alcohol ingestion, but is no more a probable indication of intoxication than eating a meal is of gluttony." Saucier v. State, 1994. Ak. 24, 869 P.2d 483 (1994).

Wyoming likewise has differentiated between drinking and driving and drunken driving. In Keehn v. Town of Torrington, 834 P.2d 112 (Wyo. 1992), the Wyoming Supreme Court stated: "A third legal reality worth noting is that it is lawful in Wyoming as in other states, to drink and drive safely. Wyo. Stat. §31-5-233 (June, 1989). A peace officer may not arrest an individual for DUI merely because it is late at night and, during an unrelated traffic stop, the officer detects the odor of alcohol. Rather the peace officer must have probable cause to believe the individual has actual physical control of a motorized vehicle while legally intoxicated.

Colorado has also applied this analysis even to cases which have involved motor vehicle collisions. In affirming the trial court's suppression of the blood test based on lack of probable cause for arrest, the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Royball, 655 P.2d 410, (1982), the recites that:

All we learned from the record is that an accident took place, the defendant was driving one of the cars involved, and he an odor of alcoholic beverage about him. Although the officer's testimony and his decision to administer a blood alcohol test are suggestive of an opinion that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, the single objective fact to which he testified in support of any such conclusion is the odor of alcoholic beverage. An odor of alcoholic beverage is not inconsistent with the ability to operate a motor vehicle in compliance with the Colorado law.

Both Louisiana and Washington, in reversing their respective trial courts, have held that even in cases involving traffic fatalities, "the mere fact that a person consumed alcohol prior to a vehicular accident does not prove that the person was under the influence or that alcohol consumption caused the accident." State v. Garrett, 525 So.2d 1235 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1988) and State v. Gillenwater, 96 Wash. App. 667 (07/23/1999) .

Kansas has said odor of intoxicants and bloodshot eyes does not even amount to reasonable articulable suspicion, let alone Probable Cause City of Hutchinson v. Davenport.

An involuntary manslaughter prosecution from Tennessee also supports the conclusion: The bare fact that there was an odor of intoxicant on his person is not sufficient to support a finding that he was driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Newby v. State, 19 McCanless 609, 215 Tenn. 609, 388 S.W.2d 136 (1965).

In sum, a DUI officer's testimony that the odor of alcohol was the only indication of intoxication prior to the arrest of the defendant, simply cannot withstand the logic that a legal act, standing alone, may form the basis of establishing probable cause for an arrest. In addition, the case law of every state in which this issue has been decided (Kansas, New Jersey, Tennessee, Alaska, Ohio, Wyoming, Colorado, Louisiana, and Washington) indicates that the odor of alcohol alone does not reach the level of probable cause for a DUI arrest or drunk driving conviction.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Major DUI crackdown is what California DUI defense lawyers forecast for Memorial Day Weekend - this upcoming weekend

Major DUI crackdown is what California DUI defense attorneys are hearing for Memorial Day Weekend, this upcoming weekend. California DUI police agencies will implement California Drunk Driving checkpoints and saturation patrols throughout California a statewide crackdown during the Memorial Day weekend. If you need a lawyer after this weekend, look at your options.

“Law enforcement (agencies) throughout the county will be combining resources and sending out a unified message this Memorial Day weekend to holiday travelers, college graduates and communities enjoying festivities that drunk driving won’t be tolerated. If you’re over the limit, you will be arrested,” said one California DUI Police Department cop.

The county’s Avoid the 13 DUI task force will be staffing California DUI checkpoints this weekend and deploying additional local DUI saturation patrols working overtime. The California Drunk Driving task force will be “targeting those (people) who still don’t heed the message to designate a sober driver before the celebrations begin,” Savano said.

The California DUI enforcement campaign will begin in Petaluma on Friday night, May 22 with a DUI/driver’s license checkpoint in Petaluma, and California DUI saturation patrols will be scheduled throughout the weekend. The California Highway Patrol will be deploying 80 percent of all available officers — on freeways and county roads in its jurisdiction — during the weekend.

“Police, sheriff and CHP officers are doing more with less to remove drunk drivers from California’s streets and highways,” said Chris Murphy, director of the California Office of Traffic Safety. “Law enforcement (agencies) everywhere are asking for the community’s help; if you see a drunk driver, call 911.”

The Petaluma Police Department serves as the lead agency for regional California DUI enforcement efforts in Sonoma County to reduce alcohol-related injuries and raise general public awareness regarding the problems associated with drinking and driving.

Participating California DUI agencies include the city police departments from Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and Windsor; Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department; Sonoma State University Police Department; Santa Rosa Junior College Police Department; Santa Rosa Junior College Police Department; California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; and California Highway Patrol, according to California Drunk Driving lawyers.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

What is "source code" for breath test machines in DUI cases?

The computer source code for breath test machines used in DUI cases has been disputed for 2 years as defense attorneys point out the DUI driver's right to the code. It shouldn't be so hard - the code is not really unique or proprietary.

The Draeger Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C, as in State v. Chun, should be suspended from use until the software has been reviewed against an acceptable set of software development standards, and recoded and tested if necessary, as a matter of public safety:

1. Someone not really over the limit or under the influence could be wrongly accused of drunk driving.
2. An unreliable or untrustworthy breath test could lead to accidents and loss of life, because the device might not detect a person who is under the influence, and a drunk driver may be allowed to drive again shortly after testing.

The manufacturer reviewed the code through its software house which agreed that the patchwork code that makes up the 7110 is not written well, nor is it written to any defined coding standard: "The Alcotest NJ3.11 source code appears to have evolved over numerous transitions and versioning, which is responsible for cyclomatic complexity."

Per an extensive evaluation, a firm found 19,400 potential errors in the code, including a few here:

Its Software Would Not Pass United States Industry Standards for Software Development and Testing: The program shows evidence of incomplete design, incomplete verification of design, and incomplete “white box” and “black box” testing. The software has to be considered unreliable and untested, and in several cases it does not meet stated requirements. The planning and documentation of the design is haphazard. Sections of the original code and modified code show evidence of using an experimental approach to coding, or use what is best described as the “trial and error” method.

Its software would not pass development standards and testing for the U.S. Government or Military. It would fail software standards for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Federal Drug Administration (FDA), as well as commercial standards used in devices for public safety. This means the Alcotest would not be considered for military applications such as analyzing breath alcohol for fighter pilots. If the FAA imposed mandatory alcohol testing for all commercial pilots, the Alcotest would be rejected based upon the FAA safety and software standards.

Its readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the third reading with the average just computed. Then the fourth reading is averaged with the new average, and so on. The values should be averaged, and they are not.

Its results Limited to Small, Discrete Values: The A/D converters measuring the IR readings and the fuel cell readings can produce values between 0 and 4095. However, the software divides the final average(s) by 256, meaning the final result can only have 16 values to represent the five-volt range (or less), or, represent the range of alcohol readings possible. This is a loss of precision in the data; of a possible twelve bits of information, only four bits are used. Further, because of an attribute in the IR calculations, the result value is further divided in half. This means that only 8 values are possible for the IR detection, and this is compared against the 16 values of the fuel cell.

Its Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is disabled, meaning that the Alcotest software could appear to run correctly while executing wild branches or invalid code for a period of time. Other interrupts ignored are the Computer Operating Property (a watchdog timer), and the Software Interrupt.

Its Implemented Design Lacks Positive Feedback: The software controls electrical lines, which switch devices on and off, such as an air pump, infrared source, etc. The design does not provide a monitoring sensory line (loop back) for the software to detect that the device state actually changed. This means that the software assumes the change in state is always correct, but it cannot verify the action.

Its Diagnostics Adjust/Substitute Data Readings: The diagnostic routines for the Analog to Digital (A/D) Converters will substitute arbitrary, favorable readings for the measured device if the measurement is out of range, either too high or too low. The values will be forced to a high or low limit, respectively. This error condition is suppressed unless it occurs frequently enough.

Its Flow Measurements Adjusted/Substituted: The software takes an airflow measurement at power-up, and presumes this value is the “zero line” or baseline measurement for subsequent calculations. No quality check or reasonableness test is done on this measurement. Subsequent calculations are compared against this baseline measurement, and the difference is the change in airflow. If the airflow is slower than the baseline, this would result in a negative flow measurement, so the software simply adjusts the negative reading to a positive value. If the measurement of a later baseline is taken, and the measurement is declared in error by the software, the software simply uses the last “good” baseline, and continues to read flow values from a declared erroneous measurement device.

Its Range Limits Are Substituted for Incorrect Average Measurements: In a manner similar to the diagnostics, voltage values are read and averaged into a value. If the resulting average is a value out of range, the averaged value is changed to the low or high limit value. If the value is out of range after averaging, this should indicate a serious problem, such as a failed A/D converter.

Its Code Does Not Detect Data Variations.

Its Error Detection Logic: The software design detects measurement errors, but ignores these errors unless they occur a consecutive total number of times. For example, in the airflow measuring logic, if a flow measurement is above the prescribed maximum value, it is called an error, but this error must occur 32 consecutive times for the error to be handled and displayed. This means that the error could occur 31 times, then appear within range once, then appear 31 times, etc., and never be reported. The software uses different criteria values (e.g. 10 instead of 32) for the measurements of the various Alcotest components, but the error detection logic is the same as described.

Its Timing Problems: The design of the code is to run in timed units of 8.192 milliseconds, by means of an interrupt signal to a handler, which then signals the main program control that it can continue to the next segment. The interrupt goes off every 8.192 ms, not 8.192 ms from my latest request for a time delay. The more often the code calls a single 8.192 ms interrupt, the more inaccurate the software timing can be, because the requests from the mainline software instructions are out of phase with the continuously operating timer interrupt routine.

Its Defects In Three Out Of Five Lines Of Code: A universal tool in the open-source community, called Lint, was used to analyze the source code written in C. This program uncovers a range of problems from minor to serious problems that can halt or cripple the program operation. This Lint program has been used for many years. It uncovered that there are 3 error lines for every 5 lines of source code in C.

The manufacturer proclaims that the "The Alcotest [7110] is the single best microprocessor-driven evidential breath tester on the market", yet the 7110 has been replaced with a newer Windows based version, the 9510. The problem is many of the old machines are still being used everyday.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Tonight's DUI Checkpoints & Drunk Driving Roadblocks in Southern California

California's San Bernardino Police Department Targets Impaired Drivers with DUI Checkpoint on Saturday, May 16, 2009 from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM, in the 1500 block of West 5th Street in San Bernardino. This program is part of the department’s effort to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol involved crashes, 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. This DUI/Drivers License checkpoint is an effort to reduce those tragedies, as well as insuring drivers have a valid driver’s license. A major component of these checkpoints is to increase awareness of the dangers of impaired driving and to encourage sober designated drivers. A DUI checkpoint is a proven effective method for achieving this goal. By publicizing these enforcement and education efforts, the San Bernardino Police Department believes motorists can be deterred from drinking and driving. Their objective is to send a clear message to those who are considering driving a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol and/or drugs – Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under Arrest.

Also, the Fontana Police Department will conduct a DUI/driver's license checkpoint Saturday on Sierra Avenue and run from 6 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., according to a police news release. Officers will look for intoxicated motorists and for individuals driving without a valid driver's license. The checkpoint is part of an ongoing DUI enforcement effort within the city.

Money for these California DUI checkpoints is provided by the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Friday, May 15, 2009

6 year California DUI sentence for drunk driving death: friends don’t let friends drive drunk

DUI lawyers often face judges who could hand out 11 years of state prison in California. 23 year old Defendant Lopez was sentenced to six years in prison Wednesday in the death of Breena LeAnn Cardenas, 19, in a Californa DUI wreck.

The California DUI sentencing hearing took place in a courtroom packed with Car­de­nas’ relatives and friends wea­r­ing her photograph around their necks.

“People who do armed robbery without hurting anyone get longer sentences than drunk drivers that kill someone,” one family member said. “Angel has done this before,” she said, referring to a prior DUI conviction, “but he only got off with a slap on the wrist.”“He not only killed Breena, he killed me, too.”

Cardenas’ other family members expressed similar sentiments, and questioned whether current DUI laws and enforcement are sufficient. “Go to any of those bars in downtown and look at the cars, they’re all in there drinking,” said Cardenas’ father. “Then go look after closing, how many cars are there?”

On September 12, Lopez was DUI / driving under the influence of alcohol on Lower Lake Road - in Crescent City area - at a “high rate of speed,” when the tires of his truck dropped off the asphalt. Lopez over-corrected to the left, causing the truck to flip onto its right side and into an embankment, also injuring three other passengers. Cardenas was killed when she was thrown from the truck.

In a tearful and halting statement to the court, Lopez’s sister did not try to absolve her brother of his crime, but also sought to show how the fault was not his alone. To the family she said, “friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”

Lopez spent his own chance at addressing the court trying to talk through sobs to both his family and Cardenas’: “I’m sorry, I’m sorry to everybody. I take full responsibility for this, that’s why I’m here. I would trade places with her if I could.” The California DUI judge stated that he felt that Lopez was aware of his fault in Cardenas’ death and felt true remorse.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Why can't DUI lawyers get the breath test machines' source codes? Because the State doesn't have it?

DUI attorneys who practice in California are familiar with Compulsory Process and The Right of Access to Information:

Defendants have a constitutional right to investigate their case and of access to evidence. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690-91 [106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636] (1986); California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 [104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413] (1984); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 [87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019] (1967); see also Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51-53 [107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37] (1987); Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-09 [108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798] (1988); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 [93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297] (1973).

In the New York case of People v. Robinson 53 A.D.3d 63, 67, 860 N.Y.S.2d 159, 163 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,2008), cases allowing access to breath testing evidence were reviewed:

“Indeed, case law has recognized the defendant's right, in prosecutions charging driving while intoxicated and related offenses, to disclosure of various documents not expressly listed in CPL 240.20 ( see Matter of Constantine v. Leto, 157 A.D.2d 376, 378, 557 N.Y.S.2d 611 [records indicating that a machine was not operating properly are discoverable, as are the State Police rules and regulations, the operational checklist, and calibration records]; People v. Crandall, 228 A.D.2d 794, 795, 644 N.Y.S.2d 817 [documents relating to ampoule analysis and simulator solution analysis are subject to disclosure]; People v. Erickson, 156 A.D.2d 760, 762, 549 N.Y.S.2d 182 [breathalyzer operator's permit and the weekly test record are subject to disclosure]; People v. DiLorenzo, 134 Misc.2d 1000, 1002-1004, 513 N.Y.S.2d 938) [several specific documents are subject to disclosure]; see also People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375, 380, 521 N.Y.S.2d 212, 515 N.E.2d 898 [defendant may not be denied discovery which prevents him from challenging the reliability and accuracy of a breathalyzer machine]) ( see Gerstenzang and Sills, Handling the DWI Case in New York, § 20:39, at 431 [2007-2008 ed]).

Nevertheless, the Robinson court (as many state appeals courts have) denied the defendant access to the source codes, holding that they couldn’t order what the State didn’t possess.

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that admission of breath alcohol analysis results without granting the defendant access to the source code of the breath machine which performed the analysis did not violate Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, according to State v. Kuhl 276 Neb. 497, 755 N.W.2d 389 (Neb.,2008)

In State v. Underdahl 749 N.W.2d 117, 119 (Minn.App.,2008) the Appellate Court denied a defendant access to the source code, requiring a district court's determination that the computer source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000EN is relevant to a defendant's guilt or innocence be premised on a showing that an examination of the instrument's software would show defects in its operation or at least would be necessary to determine whether defects exist. Since such a showing was not made, the ditrict court’s ruling was reversed.

In State v. Bastos 985 So.2d 37 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2008), a Florida trial court ruled:

“[C]redible testimony explains that the state has substituted the results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 for the analysis of a forensic chemist. Although defendants cannot cross-examine a machine as they could a chemist, this constitutional right to investigate the evidence against them gives the defendants a right to understand how the machine calculates and reports the breath alcohol reading, how and when the machines does or does not filter out or report the presence of other molecularly similar substances in the breath, and how and when the machine makes all of its other determinations and reports such as mouth alcohol or radio interference…”

Nevertheless, the Bastos appellate court overruled the trial court, finding that there was no showing that any possible errors observed in the operation of the machine necessitated access to the source code itself. State v. Bastos 985 So.2d 37, 42 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2008)

Thus, they held, the source code for the breath test machine used in defendants' cases was not “material,” within the meaning of the provision of the uniform law to secure the attendance of witnesses from within or without a state in criminal proceedings. State v. Bastos 985 So.2d 37 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2008)

The Bastos court distinguished its holding from another Florida appeals case involving access to evidence. In State v. Bjorkland 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1793, 1796 -1797 (Fla.Cir.2005) , it was held that the defendants had demonstrated a reasonable necessity for production of the source code. The State therein had failed to establish any record setting forth available alternatives, or lack of materiality, or irreparable harm to the manufacturer of the software. Other than simply asserting that CMI was unwilling to produce the source code, the State in Bjorklund did not present any evidence rebutting reasonable necessity. Based on the record presented in that case, the court made the factual finding that the defendants had established that the source code was material to their theory of defense in these cases. The defendants established through expert testimony that the source code was reasonably necessary to determine whether the Intoxilyzer in fact contained the software approved by the State of Florida; whether it was functioning as per the approved source code, and whether any alterations had affected its operation or reliability. In so allowing, Bjorklund also commented on the following:

Section 316.1932 (4), Fla. Stat., (2005), specifically provides that “full information” regarding the test taken “shall be made available” to the persons tested or their attorney. One would assume full information means just that, full information.

Section 90.506, Fla. Stat., (2005), also provides that the trade secret privilege is not allowed where it would “otherwise work injustice” *1797 and that the court may take appropriate measures to protect the holder of the privilege.

Where defendants faces criminal sanctions, including incarceration and loss of driving privileges, it would be contrary to the purpose of sections 316.1932 and 90.506 to permit the state to assert a trade secret privilege on behalf of its contractor and thereby prohibit these defendants from obtaining information relevant to the instrument that is used to prove their guilt.

Where a state enters into a contract with a breathalyzer manufacturer pursuant to which the state obtains a possessory interest in the source codes and other relevant copyrightable material, and concurrently obligates the manufacturer to provide relevant technical information to defense attorneys, that state may make itself subject to statutory disclosure requirements. Since the State of Minnesota entered into such a contract with the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer, it was obligated to disclose the source codes to a person charged with driving under the influence of alcohol ( see Matter of Commr. of Public Safety, 735 N.W.2d 706, 713 [Minn. 2007] ).

In the Georgia case of Hills v. State 291 Ga.App. 873, 663 S.E.2d 265 (Ga.App.,2008) it was held that a DWI defendant was not entitled to discovery of the source code used in the breath testing machine, since the code was not within the possession, control, or custody of the state; the machine's software was not created for the state, and the state did not own code and was not otherwise in possession or control of the code.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Plunge your car down a cliff & crash into RR tracks? Get out & live but face California DUI charges!

How to not to drink, drive and go over railroad tracks in California: a man may face a California DUI / drunk driving charge after his car plunged down a cliff and crashed into railroad tracks, where it remained until a train hit it hours after that. The driver was not in the 1990s blue Honda Accord when the train hit it at about 3:55 a.m. Monday.

A cargo-line conductor and engineer reported that the train had hit the car. The car was found between the divider wall and tracks. Wright said the train, carrying 55empty cars, was traveling from San Luis Obispo to San Jose. Traveling at 55 mph, it usually takes a train up to a mile to stop.

The California DUI suspect had been driving about 9 p.m., southbound on Metz Road when his car veered off and down the cliff. Possible penatlies & criminal charges arer still under investigation and other charges might await Lara, who was initially cited on suspicion of Drunk Driving.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Drunk driving sobriety and DUI checkpoint on Friday evening, May 15 in Roseville, California

Criminal defense attorneys who handle DUI cases in California announce Roseville California's Police Department will conduct a drunk driving & DUI sobriety and driver’s license checkpoint on Friday evening, May 15, at an undisclosed location. California DUI officers will contact all drivers passing through the California Drunk Driving checkpoint, checking for alcohol and/or drug impaired drivers. California DUI officers will also check to make sure all drivers have a valid driver’s license.

The purpose of the California DUI checkpoint is to make Roseville’s streets safer; to increase awareness of the dangers associated with drinking and driving; and to serve as a deterrent to potential impaired and unlicensed drivers.

While other types of traffic collisions are declining in Roseville, alcohol and drug-related traffic collisions are on the rise. Roseville officers investigated 42 California DUI-related collisions during the first three months of 2009, a 45 percent increase over the same period last year. One person was killed and 23 injured in those collisions.

The Roseville Police Department is doing routine nightly California DUI enforcement, special California DUI patrols, and California DUI sobriety checkpoints. Roseville’s most recent California Drunk Driving checkpoint on April 17 resulted in the arrests of 5 California DUI drivers.

Money for Roseville’s California DUI enforcement was funded by a $100,000 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Nice weekend in Palm Springs until arrested for dui at checkpoint?

DUI attorneys in California tried to warn folks about being trapped on a nice weekend in the desert at a checkpoint in Palm Springs.

California drunk driving uthorities impounded 16 vehicles, arrested four drivers on suspicion of California DUI and issued 21 citations for unlicensed or revoked driver's licenses and other violations during a DUI checkpoint in Palm Springs, California.

Friday night's California DUI checkpoint trapped drivers in the 2900 block of North Indian Canyon Drive. A total of 841 vehicles could not escape and were screened for drunk driving investigations.

Of the 16 vehicles impounded, 12 will be stored for at least 30 days.

Money for the California DUI checkpoint was provided through what sometimes appear to be unlimited grants from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

$13 K for a DUI? Ask DMV any DUI / DMV related questions at

Q. to Director of California DUI:
I am very concerned because my best friend was cited for a California DUI - driving under the influence for the first time.
What are the ramifications for California drunk driving or driving under the influence?

A. by Director of California DMV: Financial costs for a first-time conviction vary, but could cost up to $13,000 in fines, penalty assessments and insurance costs, plus a jail sentence of up to six months, depending upon the court and circumstance.
In addition, California DUI convictions remain on the driving record for 10 years.
For a first-time conviction, the California DMV will suspend a person’s driving privilege for six months. The person convicted — in this case, your friend — must complete a California DUI program, provide evidence of insurance, and pay a $125 reissue fee before they can get their license back.
Your friend may be eligible for a restricted license issued by California DMV before the end of the six-month suspension.

Click here for California DMV's information on DUI.

George Valverde is the director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles. He asks: Do you have questions about general driving related requirements like registration or insurance? or Are you unclear about DMV's public statements of DUI laws and restrictions related to driving?

You can also submit any DMV-related questions at

California DUI defense lawyers provide DMV information as well.

24's Star's 48 hours wouldn't cover new probation violation in California DUI case - Kiefer obviously harassed again!

Kiefer Sutherland charged with misdemeanor assault after a fashion designer claimed the actor head-butted him at a Manhattan nightclub. The star of "24" reported to a lower Manhattan police station in a Lincoln Town Car with his criminal defense lawyers. This is not the CTU team, this is the CDA (criminal defense attorney) team.

Sutherland, 42, was interviewed by investigators, given a ticket, ordered to appear in court June 22 and is no more serious than a speeding ticket.

But it's a new embarrassment for Sutherland, who served 48 days in jail on a 2007 California DUI / drunk driving charge.

The designer, Jack McCollough of the Proenza Schouler fashion house, said Sutherland attacked him after an argument, leaving him with a cut on his face.

The encounter took place about 2 a.m. Tuesday at SubMercer, a trendy club in the basement of SoHo's Mercer Hotel.

Detectives planned to question actress Brooke Shields as a witness, since she was at the club. No LA City Attorney decision has been made on whether the assault charge will affect Sutherland's probation from the California DUI.

In September 2007, Sutherland pleaded no contest to driving with a blood-alcohol level above California's legal limit of 0.08 percent. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, plus 18 days for violating probation in a 2004 drunk-driving arrest.

At the time, he issued a statement saying: “I'm very disappointed in myself for the poor judgment I exhibited recently, and I'm deeply sorry for the disappointment and distress this has caused my family, friends and co-workers on `24.'”

Sutherland plays dashing federal agent Jack Bauer on the hit series. He's won a Golden Globe and an Emmy for his work. The show is in its seventh season, and Sutherland has signed on for an eighth.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Palm Springs tonight? Caution - California DUI sobriety and driver's license checkpoint on Friday

Going to the desert for fun this weekend? Be careful. Palm Springs Police Department Traffic Unit said it will conduct a California DUI sobriety and driver's license checkpoint on Friday. The exact California DUI location will be determined that on that date and will not be released prior to the event. Whether or not there is a legitimate escape route remains to be seen.

The California DUI operation will conform to United States Constitutional Standards or else California DUI lawyers will be picking this apart. One of the top California DUI attorneys in the state is in that area. The California DUI roadblock is part of a traffic safety effort to reduce alcohol-related fatal and injury collisions within the City of Palm Springs. Palm Springs police said questions regarding this California DUI checkpoint should be directed to PSPD Traffic Unit Sergeant Abraham Tokier at 323-8105.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Burger Man faces San Diego California DUI felony charges - hungry after kill?

California DUI attorneys are told a San Diego Drunk Driving trial date was set for a man accused of allegedly killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk, walking into the roadway to check on the victim, then going into a nearby Burger King to "get a burger."

Alan Lester Mabrey, who has seven prior DUI convictions from Texas and Colorado, faces second-degree murder and other related San Diego DUI charges stemming from with the death of 24-year-old Emily Dowdy.

Mabrey could be sentenced to 15 years to life behind bars if convicted of the murder charge, plus an additional seven to nine years if found guilty of other charges, including gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, hit-and-run causing death, DUI causing death and driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher.

Mabrey's blood-alcohol level was allegedly measured at .22 percent after the 7:20 p.m. accident. The man allegedly had been allegedly drinking at a nearby bar when he got into the driver's seat of his friend's truck and drove a short distance on Reed Avenue before hitting the victim as he tried to make a left turn onto Mission Boulevard. Dowdy suffered massive head injuries and was declared brain-dead 24 hours later.

San Diego DUI police Officer Blake Cheary testified at a preliminary hearing last month that Mabrey admitted driving the Dodge truck and knowing he hit someone.
Outside court Wednesday, the San Diego drunk driving prosecutor said the facts of the case paint a very tragic picture of what happened that night. San Diego police Officer Blake Cheary testified that he arrived on the scene about an hour after the 7:20 p.m. accident and overheard Mabrey talking to another officer. Cheary said Mabrey allegedly admitted driving the Dodge truck and knowing that he hit someone. Mabrey also said he walked into the roadway to check on the victim, then went into a nearby Burger King to "get a burger," the California DUI officer previously said in court.

Another San Diego DUI officer testified that Mabrey allegedly told him that "when he gets nervous, he gets hungry."

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Facing overzealous DUI cops throughout California and promoted by MADD?

MADD gives out an award to a cop who will make the most DUI arrests. Luckily a California DUI arrest does not mean a conviction for DUI. If you are facing the charge of drunk driving, Rick Mueller, a California DUI lawyer from San Diego County DUI Law Center, has the ability and 25 years of experience to vigorously fight for your rights. Call today at 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI for a free EVALUATION.

DUI Officer Terry Baker received a "California Hero" Award April 18 from the California chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD recognizes all police officers in California who make at least 25 DUI arrests in a year. He had 40 plus DUI arrests in 2008. His Department was also recognized by MADD for its participation in efforts to remove California DUI drivers from the highways.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Cinco De Mayo Checkpoints in California: Drivers beware - do not get a DUI tonight

Cinco de Mayo marks the date, in 1862, of the Battle of Puebla in Mexico but tonight's DUI battle will be different: California DUI lawyers are told cops will be out tonight throughout the state, looking for drunk drivers and making DUI arrests to try to win the MADD Most DUI Arrests Award of the year! For those who are planning to celebrate Cinco de Mayo with a drink or two, law enforcement officials want to remind them to find a designated driver and not to drink and drive.

Tonight is the Cinco de Mayo holiday, so many San Bernardino County Sheriff’s stations and the CHP will be increasing the number of patrol officials on the streets and highways. The CHP Victorville station will also have additional units out roving the highways and freeways on the lookout for impaired drivers, according California dui attorneys. This year’s holiday falls during the week, officials predict they may not see as many partiers as if it were on a weekend, but said that the extra precautions are still necessary. Officials note a decline in DUI-related crashes in California to ramped-up patrol and more aggressive DUI enforcement campaigns.

California drunk driving law enforcement will be in force tonight looking for motorists who may choose to celebrate Cinco de Mayo with a little too much alcohol. "Cinco de Mayo has become a big night out, especially for young adults," stated Paradise police Lt. Al Billington in a press release Monday.

Billington, a spokesman for Butte County's "Avoid the Eight" DUI task force, said officers from all eight local law enforcement agencies will have special DUI patrols on area roadways. He said anyone planning to celebrate should designate a sober driver before festivities begin. He warned that anyone stopped for driving under the influence will be arrested. Patrols will be especially heavy in the Gridley area, and on major roadways in California Highway Patrol jurisdictions throughout California.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Marin police agencies are planning "overtime saturation patrols" to look for drunken drivers Tuesday during the Cinco de Mayo holiday

DUI California alert for Marin County, Northern California:
Marin DUI police are ready with "overtime saturation patrols" to look for California DUI / drunk drivers tomorrow during the Cinco de Mayo holiday.

The special DUI California patrols will be roaming Corte Madera, Larkspur, Novato, Ross, San Rafael, Tiburon and various unincorporated areas, while the California Highway Patrol will cover the freeways and major county roads.

The California drunk driving patrols tell San Diego DUI lawyers they are being organized by the "Avoid the Marin 13" program, an ongoing state-funded campaign named for the county's 13 primary police agencies.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Annual DUI Seminar in Los Angeles California this month, at Loyola Law School

On May 30, 2009, Rick Mueller, DUI California defense lawyer, will speak at the Annual DUI Seminar at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke last year at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California.

Video of San Diego California DUI / DMV Attorney Lecture

Premier San Diego California DUI & DMV Defense Lawyer:

San Diego DUI Attorney

California DUI Attorney

Saturday, May 2, 2009

No DUI attorney in California wants to see you get stopped at a DUI roadblock tonight or Cinco De Mayo after you drove safely up to that point!

California lawyers specializing in San Diego DUI cases like folks to know there are risky drunk driving checkpoints set up throughout the state. No DUI attorney in California wants to see you get stopped at a DUI roadblock after you drove safely up to that point!

Here's a Los Angeles County dui checkpoint tonight! Long Beach Police Department will conduct a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Driver’s License Checkpoint on Saturday May 2, 2009, from 6:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. at Artesia Boulevard, east of Cherry Avenue. Traffic volume and weather permitting, all vehicles may be checked and drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs will be arrested. Our objective is to send a clear message to those who are considering driving a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol and/or drugs – Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under Arrest.

Nationally, drivers impaired by alcohol and/or drugs cause one death every 33 minutes. Sobriety checkpoints have been proven to reduce impaired driving related accidents by removing these drivers from the streets, as well as ensure that drivers have a valid driver’s license. Checkpoints also increase public awareness and deter impaired driving by encouraging the use of sober designated drivers. As always, the public is encouraged to help keep roadways safe by calling 9-1-1 anytime they see a suspected impaired driver. Funding for this operation is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Cinco De Mayo California checkpoint for DUI

On May 5, 2009, from 6:00 PM to 2:00 AM, the Perris Police Department will be conducting a DUI/driver’s license checkpoint in the City of Perris. Drivers will be evaluated for being under the influence and their driver’s license status will be checked. This DUI/driver’s license checkpoint is being funded by a California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant.

Friday, May 1, 2009

DUI California lawyers announce Minnesota dismiss thousands of drunk driving / DWI - driving-while-impaired cases after a state Supreme Court ruling

California lawyers
announce Minnesota dismiss thousands of drunk driving / DWI - driving-while-impaired cases after a state Supreme Court ruling Thursday, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys agreed.

The state's highest court ruled that defendants in drunken-driving cases have the right to make prosecutors turn over the computer "source code" that runs the Intoxilyzer breath-testing device to determine whether the device's results are reliable. Prosecutors have a problem since can't turn over the code because they don't have it.

CMI, the Kentucky company that makes the Intoxilyzer, says the code is a trade secret and has refused to release it, thus complicating Drunk Driving / DWI prosecutions.

It will be harder prosecutors across the state to getting convictions when they can't utilize evidence to show the levels of the defendant's intoxication.
There will be cause significant problems with holding offenders accountable because of this problem of not being able to obtain this source code.

Law enforcement officers can still have a motorist's blood-alcohol level determined through blood tests or urinalysis, but that option comes with a pricey, time-consuming caveat: Most of those tests are done only in the lab run by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in St. Paul.

Labs are overwhelmed now with their current workload and probably cannot handle doing blood and urinalysis tests in all DWI cases.

There's going to be a lot more blood and urine tests asked for, and that will back up the BCA. They're short-staffed already, and with the budget crisis they've got already, well, that's one of the reasons they wanted to use the Intoxilyzer in the first place. It was inexpensive to use.

Still DWI officials there felt it was too early stop using the Intoxilyzer. But he said the lab would be able to handle the workload if police agencies switched to blood tests and urinalyses.

The Intoxilyzer 5000EN is a standard machine used by Minnesota police to try to determine if a driver is over the legal limit. The state bought 260 of the machines from the manufacturer, CMI, in 1997, and state law presumes the devices' results to be reliable. The machine is used with nearly eight of every 10 suspected drunk drivers who are tested in Minnesota. Defense attorneys have argued that if they can't examine the source code, the computer program that runs the machine, they have no way to tell if the Intoxilyzer is reliable.