Monday, January 31, 2011

To save your driver's license or California privileges, your San Diego DUI attorney has only 10 calendar days to contact DMV

There's a ton of things to think about after being popped for drunk driving. DUI cases in California command the attention of lawyers you can rely on.

10. To save your driver's license or California privileges, your San Diego DUI attorney has only 10 calendar days to contact DMV!



Wisely do NOT schedule yourself. Why? If you yourself contact DMV to schedule a date which ends up conflicting with your San Diego DUI attorney's calendar, DMV will not reschedule and you may not get the San Diego DUI attorney of your choice. There is no hurry as long as your San Diego DUI 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 think you might be late, contact a San Diego DUI lawyer 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 San Diego DUI 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 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. Please 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 San Diego DMV hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of pink DMV paper.)



Issues are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you, and whether the San Diego DUI breath or blood test evidence is inadmissible, rebuttable, unreliable, inaccurate and/or untrustworthy.



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 DMV attorneys have to do is successfully knock out just 1 of the DMV issues to preserve your license, to avoid a reissue fee, and/or to avoid an expensive SR-22 filing!




Saturday, January 29, 2011

San Diego California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller recognized by the California DUI Lawyers Association specializing in California DUI/DMV

California's

"Superb"-rated

San Diego California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller recognized by the California DUI Lawyers Association as specializing in California DUI and DMV law.





Attorney Mueller is the only San Diego DUI Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as California's bible for DUI defense, the book features key DUI defense materials of San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller.


Take the first, right step right now:


* Submit the ONLINE California DUI Lawyer Survey

at this FREE DUI Attorney consultation & evaluation center



1-800-THE-LAW-DUI is the # for DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer in California:

San Diego California DUI Attorney

Thursday, January 27, 2011

How NOT to address a judge in a California DUI case, attorneys suggest

This dirty-mouthed murderer said the wrong things to a New York judge before his sentencing on Monday received plenty of prison time to rethink his choice of words.

Zaire Paige, 24, was hit with 107 years to life for killing Lethania Garcia and wounding four others in a brazen October 2008 Fort Greene shootout.

But before getting the maximum possible sentence, Paige tried to get one last dig in at the judge, Vincent Del Giudice, telling him, "With all due respect and from the bottom of my heart, suck my d---."

Without missing a beat, Del Diudice fired off a comeback and then tough justice.

"I respectfully decline your offer," the judge dead-panned. "You are a danger to all civilized members of society."

Paige was convicted of teaming up with Robert Crawford in a lunchtime attack on Garcia, 20.

The pair tracked him down as he left a state court, opened fire and continued to shoot inside a hair salon, killing their target and wounding four others, including off-duty cop Andrea Cox.

Crawford was sentenced to 53 years in prison last month.

Del Giudice and Paige had a prickly relationship.

The defendant named the judge in a rambling 128-page federal lawsuit that was dismissed. Del Giudice also barred Paige from the proceedings after he screamed at a testifying cop.

Commercial Driver loses license for having excessive California DUI BAC - lawyers' attack on hearing officer at DMV fails

Filed 1/25/11

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT(Calaveras)

JOSEPH SCOTT ZIEHLKE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

GEORGE VALVERDE, AS DIRECTOR, ETC.,

Defendant and Respondent.
C063287

(Super. Ct. No. CV35599)





APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calaveras County, John E. Martin, Judge. Affirmed.

Kenneth M. Foley, Esq., Law Offices of Kenneth M. Foley, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Alicia M.B. Fowler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Vincent J. Scally, Jr. and Scott H. Wyckoff, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, Barbara A. Morris and Kevin Hosn, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.


Lose your sobriety, lose your driver’s license, lose your job. That is one of the serious consequences for commercial motor vehicle operators who drive under the influence of alcohol.
Vehicle Code section 15300 prohibits a person from operating a commercial motor vehicle for a period of one year if the person is “convicted” of driving any vehicle while having 0.08 percent or more of alcohol in his or her blood (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), or driving a commercial vehicle while having a blood-alcohol content of 0.04 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (d)), or committing other driving offenses listed in the statute. (Veh. Code, §§ 15300, subds. (a)(1)-(10); further section references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise specified.) A “conviction” includes “a determination” by “an authorized administrative tribunal” that “a person has violated or failed to comply with the law . . . .” (§ 15210, subd. (d).)
When Joseph Scott Ziehlke was arrested for driving his pickup truck while having a blood-alcohol content of 0.16 percent, twice the legal limit, the arresting officer confiscated Ziehlke’s Class B commercial driver’s license. The officer gave Ziehlke a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) document entitled, “ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE,” which notified Ziehlke that his “privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be suspended or revoked effective 30 days from the [date of arrest]” and that he had 10 days to request a DMV administrative hearing to show that suspension or revocation of his driver’s license was not justified. The document further notified Ziehlke that he would be disqualified from operating a commercial vehicle if the DMV found that he “held a commercial driver license [while] driving any vehicle [not just a commercial vehicle] when [he] had a 0.08% BAC [blood-alcohol content].”
During the administrative hearing requested by him, Ziehlke admitted drinking “a few beers” and “some Peppermint Schnapps” prior to the driving that led to his arrest. Based upon evidence that Ziehlke was found in his vehicle stopped in a roadway, evidence of his symptoms of intoxication, including bloodshot and watery eyes, odor of alcohol, unsteady gait, loss of balance, and slurred speech, and evidence that his blood-alcohol content was 0.16 percent, the DMV hearing officer found (1) the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe that Ziehlke was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; (2) Ziehlke was lawfully arrested for driving in violation of section 23152; and (3) Ziehlke was driving a motor vehicle when he had a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more. (See §§ 13557, subd. (b)(2); 13558, subd. (c)(2).)
Accordingly, the DMV “re-imposed” the suspension of Ziehlke’s driving privilege and disqualified him from operating a commercial vehicle for a period of one year. (§ 15300, subd. (a)(1).)
The superior court denied Ziehlke’s petition for writ of mandate challenging the suspension of his commercial driver’s license.
On appeal, Ziehlke claims the DMV administrative finding that he drove a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol content over 0.08 percent “does not satisfy due process so as to be deemed a ‘conviction’ under” section 15300, subdivision (a)(1). According to Ziehlke, the “Admin Per Se hearing process fails due process in order to equate as a ‘conviction’” because the hearing officer “is not required to be qualified for the job” and the burden of proof “is only by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’” In his view, “the rationalization of the language ‘administrative tribunal’ [§ 15210, subd. (d)] has to be to tribunals such as the military which comply with basic notions of due process . . . .” The contention fails.
As we will explain, because the DMV administrative hearing is not for the purpose of imposing criminal sanctions, “relaxed” standards of due process apply. (MacDonald v. Gutierrez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 150, 155, 159.) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required, and we presume that the person conducting the hearing has the education, experience, knowledge, and abilities required by California State Personnel Board specifications to be a DMV hearing officer.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment against Ziehlke.
DISCUSSION
I
Section 13353.2 directs DMV to suspend the driving privilege of a person who “was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood” in violation of section 23152, subdivision (b). (§ 13353.2, subd. (a)(1).)
When a driver is arrested for such a violation and “chemical test results . . . show that the person has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person’s blood,” section 13382 requires the arresting officer, “acting on behalf of [DMV],” to “personally [serve] on the arrested person” a “notice of order of suspension or revocation of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle personally on the arrested person” (§ 13382, subd. (a)); “take possession of any driver’s license issued by this state which is held by the person” (§ 13382, subd. (b)); “issue, on behalf of [DMV], a temporary driver’s license . . . valid for 30 days from the date of arrest” (ibid.); and send to DMV “a copy of the completed notice of order of suspension form,” along with “any driver’s license taken into possession [by the arresting officer]” (§ 13382, subd. (c)) and “a sworn report of all the information relevant to the enforcement action, including information that adequately identifies the person, a statement of the officer’s grounds for belief that the person violated [specified sections, including section 23152], a report of the results of any chemical tests that were conducted on the person or the circumstances constituting [the person’s] refusal to submit to or complete the chemical testing,” a “copy of any notice to appear under which the person was released from custody,” and “if immediately available, a copy of the complaint filed with the court.” (§ 13380, subd. (a).)
The driver may request and obtain a DMV administrative hearing on the matter. (§§ 13558, subd. (a), 14100, subd. (a).) “If the person wishes to have a hearing before the effective date of the order of suspension or revocation, the request for a hearing shall be made within 10 days of the [person’s] receipt of the notice of the order of suspension or revocation.” (§ 13558, subd. (b).) The driver has the right to review the DMV records prior to the hearing. (§ 14104.) The hearing “shall be conducted by the director [of DMV] or by a hearing officer or hearing board appointed by [the director] from officers or employees of [DMV].” (§ 14104.2, subd. (a).) At the request of the driver or of any party to the hearing, DMV or the hearing officer shall--before the hearing has commenced--issue subpoenas for attendance or production of documents at the hearing. (§ 14104.5, subd. (a).) The hearing officer “shall consider [DMV’s] official records and may receive sworn testimony.” (§ 14104.7, subd. (a).) “Upon the conclusion of a hearing, the hearing officer or hearing board shall make findings and render a decision on behalf of [DMV] and shall notify the [driver] involved. Notice of the decision shall include a statement of the person’s right to a review. The decision shall take effect as stated in the notice, but not less than four nor more than 15 days after the notice is mailed.” (§ 14105, subd. (a).)
This DMV hearing procedure “is called ‘administrative per se’ because it does not impose criminal penalties, but simply suspends a person’s driver’s license as an administrative matter upon a showing the person was arrested for driving with a certain blood-alcohol concentration, without additional evidence of impairment. [Citation.] The express legislative purposes of the administrative suspension procedure are: (1) to provide safety to persons using the highways by quickly suspending the driving privilege of persons who drive with excessive blood-alcohol levels; (2) to guard against erroneous deprivation by providing a prompt administrative review of the suspension; and (3) to place no restriction on the ability of a prosecutor to pursue related criminal actions. [Citations.]” (MacDonald v. Gutierrez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 155.)
II
In accordance with the administrative per se procedure outlined above, Ziehlke’s Class B commercial driver’s license was suspended, and DMV disqualified him from operating a commercial vehicle for a period of one year (§ 15300, subd. (a)(1)), because a DMV hearing officer found Ziehlke violated section 23152, subdivision (b) by driving his pickup truck while he had a blood-alcohol content of 0.16 percent.
Section 15300 states in part: “(a) No driver of a commercial motor vehicle may operate a commercial motor vehicle for a period of one year if the driver is convicted of a first violation of [various Vehicle Code sections, including section 23152, subdivision (b)].” (Italics added.)
Ziehlke begrudgingly acknowledges that a “[c]onviction” within the meaning of section 15300 includes “a determination” by “an authorized administrative tribunal” that “a person has violated or failed to comply with the law . . . .” (§ 15210, subd. (d).)
Nevertheless, Ziehlke argues that DMV “is not an ‘authorized administrative tribunal’ for the purpose of making determinations of guilt or innocense [sic] sufficient to equate conduct to being a ‘conviction’” because the hearing officer “is not required to be qualified for the job” and the burden of proof “is only by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’” He believes that, because the “judicial like decisions [regarding whether a person has driven with a prohibited blood-alcohol content] have catastrophic effects on the lives of the commercial drivers,” we must construe the words “authorized administrative tribunal” in section 15300 to apply only “to tribunals such as the military which comply with basic notions of due process and [c]onstitutional guarantees.”
His argument fails to acknowledge that the DMV administrative per se process for suspension of the privilege to drive a motor vehicle is not akin to a criminal proceeding, and that not all of the principles of due process of law that apply to criminal proceedings are required for the DMV administrative per se process.
The hearing in accordance with the DMV administrative per se law is a hearing of an administrative tribunal authorized by statute to decide whether facts exist to suspend a person’s driver’s license. (MacDonald v. Gutierrez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 155-159.) It is not akin to a criminal proceeding because it is not for the purpose of imposing criminal sanctions, but to decide whether a person’s privilege to drive should be suspended because the person endangered the public by driving with a prohibited blood-alcohol content. (Id. at p. 155; Beamon v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 200, 210 [“suspension or revocation of a license is not penal; its purpose is to make the streets and highways safe by protecting the public from incompetence, lack of care, and willful disregard of the rights of others by drivers”].)
The administrative per se proceeding was created by statute to protect the public because the Legislature “deemed [the proceeding] necessary due to the time lag that often occurs between an arrest and a conviction for driving while intoxicated or with a prohibited blood-alcohol concentration. During this interim period, arrestees who would eventually be convicted of an intoxication-related driving offense were permitted to continue driving and, possibly, endangering the public. Moreover, without administrative per se laws, persons with extremely high blood-alcohol concentration levels at the time of arrest could escape license suspension or revocation by plea bargaining to lesser crimes or entering pretrial diversion. Thus, by providing for an administrative license suspension prior to the criminal proceeding, the law affords the public added protection.” (MacDonald v. Gutierrez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 155.)
Determining what process is due “requires identification and balancing of three distinct factors: (1) the private interest affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the financial and administrative burdens which would be entailed by additional safeguards.” (Peretto v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 449, 459-460 (hereafter Peretto); see also Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 U.S. 1, 10 [61 L.Ed.2d 321, 329-330] (hereafter Mackey); Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 335 [47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33].)
Courts held long ago that the balancing of the aforesaid factors favors relaxed standards for administrative proceedings to decide whether facts exist to suspend the driver’s license of a person arrested for driving with a prohibited blood-alcohol content. (Mackey, supra, 443 U.S. at pp. 11-19 [61 L.Ed.2d at pp. 330-335]; MacDonald v. Gutierrez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 159; Peretto, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at pp. 459-460.)
Consistent with this well-established authority that Ziehlke does not even acknowledge, let alone address, we conclude the right to due process of law does not require, as he claims, a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in administrative per se proceedings regarding suspension of the driver’s license of a person arrested for driving with a prohibited blood-alcohol content. (Peretto, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 462 [“administrative hearing requires a determination based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. An acquittal of a criminal charge might represent only a conclusion that the proof was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not an adjudication that the driver did not actually drive with the unlawful blood-alcohol level”].)
Accordingly, DMV may, based on a preponderance of the evidence, prohibit, on that ground, the holder of a commercial vehicle license from operating such a vehicle for a period of one year. (§ 15300.)
We also reject Ziehlke’s claim that the administrative per se proceeding violates due process because, in his view, the person who is appointed by the director of DMV to be a hearing officer “is not required to be qualified for the job.” In rhetoric demeaning to those whom he uses as examples, he argues that, because the statute states the hearing “shall be conducted by the director [of DMV] or by a hearing officer or hearing board appointed by [the director] from officers or employees of [DMV]” (§ 14104.2, subd. (a)), the hearing officers could be janitors, security guards, or mail-room clerks with no legal training. This claim overlooks that the California State Personnel Board has promulgated minimum qualifications for a person to serve as a driver safety officer “conducting Administrative Per Se Hearings” (http://www.dpa.ca.gov/textdocs/specs/s8/s8727; attached as the APPENDIX to this opinion). We take judicial notice of them. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (b), (c).) The qualifications include, among other things, that DMV hearing officers (1) have completed certain college courses and have specified work experience, (2) have knowledge of rules of evidence “as they apply to the conduct of Administrative Per Se and other hearings,” applicable case law, Vehicle Code provisions, and hearing procedures and practices, and (3) have the “ability to interpret and apply statutes and applicable case law, regulations, and policies relating to driver licenses and traffic safety; . . . rule on motions and objectives, weigh evidence, identify facts, resolve issues of credibility, identify appropriate law, apply law to facts, and make fair and impartial decisions which are based solely upon the merits of the case . . ..” (APPENDIX.) We presume that the director of DMV appoints as hearing officers only those who meet these qualifications. (Evid. Code, § 664.)
For reasons stated above, the administrative per se statutory scheme does not violate due process of law, and the DMV finding that Ziehlke drove a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more was a “conviction” within the meaning of section 15300 requiring DMV to prohibit him from operating a commercial motor vehicle for a period of one year.
III
In passing, and not under a separate heading as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204, Ziehlke raises a claim that he did not assert in the superior court. He cites statutes of four other states for the proposition that, a “view of the different definitions of ‘conviction’ throughout the United States makes it easy to see how [his] problems would not exist if he lived in other states.” Therefore, he asserts, California’s administrative per se process for suspending a driver’s license “violates the right to equal protection under the laws” because the “interpretation now given to ‘conviction’ in the California Statute [sic] exceeds the interpretation of ‘conviction’ by a number of states.”
Not only has Ziehlke forfeited the claim by failing to raise it in the superior court (see In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293), it is forfeited by his failure to provide any meaningful analysis of the principles of equal protection of laws. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)
In any event, the claim fails on the merits. To prevail on an equal protection of law challenge, a person must show the state has adopted a classification that affects in an unequal manner two or more groups that are similarly situated for purposes of the law that is challenged. (Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 253.) California’s administrative procedures governing suspension or revocation of the privilege to drive in this state need not conform to such procedures in other states. (See People v. Martinez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1516.) Thus, Ziehlke is not similarly situated to persons licensed by other states to drive.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

SCOTLAND , J.*

We concur:

ROBIE , Acting P. J.


MAURO , J.






















* Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


APPENDIX


SPEC: DRIVER SAFETY OFFICER SERIES
CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

SPECIFICATION


Schematic Code: VQ51
Class Code: 8727
Established: 9/18/80
Revised: 5/2/01
Title Changed: 2/2/93


DRIVER SAFETY OFFICER


DEFINITION

This specification describes a classification with four alternate
salary ranges to be used in the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver
Safety Program. The classification is used for prelicensing and
postlicensing control of the driving privilege. Incumbents review
financial responsibility and driver records; conduct interviews,
reexaminations, and hearings relative to the modification, granting,
or withdrawal of the driving privilege in cases involving drivers
with physical or mental problems, negligent vehicle operation, fraud,
or noncompliance with the Administrative Per Se statute; and do other
related work.


ENTRY LEVEL

Entry into this classification is typically at the class level of
Driver Safety Officer, Range A, or Driver Safety Officer, Range B.
In Range A, the incumbent is being trained to conduct the various
types of driver safety contacts; i.e., investigations, interviews,
reexaminations, and hearings. There is substantial supervision
required. Contacts consist of the most basic types of Driver Safety
work including cases which are the least sensitive and complex and
are not high profile. Possession of the criteria described in
Alternate Range Criteria 133, Range A or B, permits entry at the
appropriate level.


FACTORS AFFECTING POSITION ALLOCATION

Complexity; level and variety of work assigned; independence of
action; degree of responsibility; supervision received; and
sensitivity of work assigned.


TYPICAL TASKS

In a regional or headquarters assignment, Driver Safety Officer
incumbents in this classification perform increasingly difficult work
in the Driver Safety Program. In Ranges A and B, under close
supervision, incumbents progress from the entry level of very basic
hearings to less involved types of hearings, reexaminations, and
interviews. These duties include, but are not limited to, conducting
Commercial Driver, Financial Responsibility, Physical/Mental,
Negligent Operator, and Fraud hearings. In Range C, under general
direction, Driver Safety Officers should be fully experienced,
conducting the full range of hearings. These duties include, but are
not limited to, conducting Administrative Per Se Hearings, Commercial
Driver, Financial Responsibility, Physical/Mental, Negligent
Operator, and Fraud hearings. In Range D, under general direction,
Driver Safety Officers should be fully experienced, conducting the
full range of hearings including Seizure and Sale and Special
Certificate; and capable of functioning in a lead capacity in the
absence of the manager. Incumbents are able to conduct hearings of a
sensitive and/or complex nature that require extensive, in-depth
investigation or have high public or political visibility.

In Headquarters, incumbents review and recommend or order action on
various complex and/or sensitive cases involving drivers' eligibility
to hold licenses, and perform technical duties related to experience
and training. Incumbents may prepare correspondence for the
signature of the Chief and/or Deputy Director or Director.
Incumbents in a Headquarters unit in a line program analysis setting
may also conduct and document user testing of the Driver Safety
Special Application Program, provide assistance in establishing
guidelines and procedures for analyzing and troubleshooting problems
reported by users relative to policy and procedure guidelines, and
analyze and develop written policies and procedures for the Driver
Safety Special Application Help Desk.

All incumbents are expected to understand the application of laws,
administrative procedures, rules of evidence, and regulations
relating to the types of hearings, interviews, and reexaminations
conducted and to develop skills in report writing, interviewing, and
interpersonal communication.

Incumbents in all ranges make public presentations related to the
Driver Safety Program.


MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

Possession of a valid driver license of the appropriate class issued by the
Department of Motor Vehicles. (Applicants who do not possess a
license will be admitted to the examination but must secure the
license prior to appointment.)
and
Either I
Education: Equivalent to graduation from four years of college,
preferably with a degree in criminal justice, prelaw, psychology,
sociology, or a related field, or an equivalent degree approved by
the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education under
the provisions of California Education Code Division 10, Part 59,
Chapter 3. (Students in their senior year of college will be
admitted to the examination, but they must produce evidence of
graduation before they can be considered eligible for appointment.)
Or II
Education: Successful completion of the equivalent of nine semester
units of college, which must have included at least one course in
English composition and two courses in psychology, sociology, or a
related field. and

Experience: One year of experience in the Department of Motor
Vehicles performing the duties of a Licensing/Registration Examiner
or Senior Motor Vehicle Technician. (Additional college education
may be substituted for the required general experience on the basis
of one year of education for six months of general experience.) or

Experience: Two years of experience in the Department of Motor
Vehicles with 18 months of that experience performing the duties of a
Motor Vehicle Technician, Range B, or Motor Vehicle Field
Representative, Range C. (Additional college education may be
substituted for the required general experience on the basis of one
year of education for six months of general experience.)
Or III
Education: Equivalent to completion of two years (60 semester units
or 90 quarter units) of college education which must have included at
least one course in English composition and two courses in
psychology, sociology, or a related field. (Students in their second
year of college will be admitted to the examination, but they must
produce evidence of completion of the required 60 semester or 90
quarter units before they can be considered eligible for
appointment.) and

Experience: One year of experience in the Department of Motor
Vehicles performing the duties of a class with a level of
responsibility comparable to that of at least a Motor Vehicle
Assistant, Range B; Motor Vehicle Technician, Range A; or Motor
Vehicle Field Representative, Range B. (Additional college education
may be substituted for the required general experience on the basis
of one year of education for six months of general experience.) or

Experience: Two years of experience in the Department of Motor
Vehicles with at least 18 months of that experience performing duties
of a class with a level of responsibility comparable to that of at
least an Office Assistant, Range B. (Additional college education
may be substituted for the required general experience on the basis
of one year of education for six months of general experience.)


KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES

Knowledge of: Rules of Evidence, Administrative Law, applicable case
law, hearing procedures, and practices; spelling, grammar,
punctuation, and modern English usage; effective writing and
interviewing techniques; provisions of the California Vehicle Code;
rules, regulations, and policies of the Department of Motor Vehicles
relating to driver licenses, traffic laws, and financial
responsibility requirements; medical terminology; principles,
procedures, and practices relating to driver control and driver
safety; departmental technical hearing procedures relating to driver
licenses and methods of examination; physical and mental disabilities
as they relate to driving performance; rules of evidence and
regulations relating to the types of hearings, interviews, and
reexaminations conducted; appropriate provisions of Administrative
Law, Government Code, the Code of Civil Procedures, and rules
governing the admissibility of evidence, as they apply to the conduct
of Administrative Per Se and other hearings and Departmental Reviews
and Quality Control Reviews.

Ability to: Interpret and apply statutes and applicable case law,
regulations, and policies relating to driver licenses and traffic
safety; interpret and apply financial responsibility requirements;
establish and maintain cooperative relations with persons contacted
concerning driver safety work and procedures; conduct departmental
hearings, interviews, and driver license reexaminations relating to
issuance and control of driver licenses; communicate effectively;
examine and cross-examine witnesses, rule on motions and objectives,
weigh evidence, identify facts, resolve issues of credibility,
identify appropriate law, apply law to facts, and make fair and
impartial decisions which are based solely upon the merits of the
case; analyze situations accurately and take effective action;
conduct Departmental Reviews, Administrative Per Se Hearings,
interviews, and reexaminations relating to issuance and control of
driver licenses; exercise sound judgment in the application of rules,
regulations, policies, and laws; make appropriate decisions on the
basis of evidence, fairness, and equity.


SPECIAL PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Demonstrated willingness to accept, and an aptitude for, increasing
responsibility; desire to pursue on-the-job training; and possession
of a good driving record which includes no convictions within the
past three years for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
hit and run, reckless driving, or manslaughter. Also included is not
being a negligent operator as defined in Section 12810 of the Vehicle
Code and having no Administrative Per Se suspensions (Sections 13353
and 13353.2 VC) within the past three years, no Financial
Responsibility suspensions (Sections 16004a, 16020, and 16070 VC)
within the past three years, no failures to answer a signed promise
to appear (40508 VC), or no failures to pay a lawfully imposed fine
(40509 VC). If a person has failed to answer his/her signed promise
to appear (40508 VC) or has failed to pay a lawfully imposed fine
(40509 VC), he/she will not be hired until the court case has been
cleared.


CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

US Justice Dept. helps DUI lawyers in California who need cell phone records to prove cops are lying about a driver being on the cell phone or texting

DUI lawyers often need cell phone records to prove drunk driving cops are lying about a California driver allegedly being on a cell phone or reportedly "texting while driving."

Well, now the US Justice Department is helping as it would like to see Internet service providers and cell phone companies to be required to hold on to records for longer to help with criminal prosecutions.

"Data retention is fundamental to the department's work in investigating and prosecuting almost every type of crime," US deputy assistant attorney general Jason Weinstein told a congressional subcommittee on Tuesday.

"Some records are kept for weeks or months; others are stored very briefly before being purged," Weinstein said in remarks prepared for delivery to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

He said Internet records are often "the only available evidence that allows us to investigate who committed crimes on the Internet."

Internet and phone records can be "crucial evidence" in a wide array of cases, including child exploitation, violent crime, fraud, terrorism, public corruption, drug trafficking, online piracy and computer hacking, Weinstein said but only if the data still exists when law enforcement needs it.

"In some ways, the problem of investigations being stymied by a lack of data retention is growing worse," he told lawmakers.

Weinstein noted inconsistencies in data retention, with one mid-sized cell phone company not keeping records, a cable Internet provider not tracking the Internet protocol addresses it assigns to customers and another only keeping them for seven days.

Law enforcement is hampered by a "legal regime that does not require providers to retain non-content data for any period of time" while investigators must request records on a case-by-case basis through the courts, he said.

"The investigator must realize he needs the records before the provider deletes them, but providers are free to delete records after a short period of time, or to destroy them immediately," Weinstein added.

The justice official said greater data retention requirements raise legitimate privacy concerns but "any privacy concerns about data retention should be balanced against the needs of law enforcement to keep the public safe."

John Morris, general counsel at the non-profit Center for Democracy & Technology, said mandatory data retention "raises serious privacy and free speech concerns."

"A key to protecting privacy is to minimize the amount of data collected and held by ISPs and online companies in the first place," he said.

"Mandatory data retention laws would require companies to maintain large databases of subscribers' personal information, which would be vulnerable to hackers, accidental disclosure, and government or other third party access."

Kate Dean, executive director of the Internet Service Provider Association, said broad mandatory data retention requirements would be "fraught with legal, technical and practical challenges."

Dean said they would require "an entire industry to retain billions of discrete electronic records due to the possibility that a tiny percentage of them might contain evidence related to a crime."

"We think that it is important to weigh that potential value against the impact on the millions of innocent Internet users' privacy," she said.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Texting while driving & cell phone violation enforcement can "get out of hand" by overzealous CHP & DUI cops in California - fight these tickets!

CHP's gestapo-like hands free cell phone crackdown and multiple San Diego County DUI - related cop agencies run rampant vis a vis the "Hands Free is Ticket Free" campaign.

Cops zeroed in on drivers Jan. 18 - Jan. 20. 593 citations were issued for those who violated the law. 36 people were cited for TWD texting while driving, a violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5.

California Vehicle Code - Section 23123.5:

(a)A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.
(b)As used in this section "write, send, or read a text-based communication" means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.
(c)For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call.
(d)A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(e)This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.


California Vehicle Code section 23123:

(a)A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.
(b)A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(c)This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.
(d)This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(e)This section does not apply to a person when using a digital two-way radio that utilizes a wireless telephone that operates by depressing a push-to-talk feature and does not require immediate proximity to the ear of the user, and the person is driving one of the following vehicles:
(1)(A)A motor truck, as defined in Section 410, or a truck tractor, as defined in Section 655, that requires either a commercial class A or class B driver's license to operate.
(B)The exemption under subparagraph (A) does not apply to a person driving a pickup truck, as defined in Section 471.
(2)An implement of husbandry that is listed or described in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 36000) of Division 16.
(3)A farm vehicle that is exempt from registration and displays an identification plate as specified in Section 5014 and is listed in Section 36101.
(4)A commercial vehicle, as defined in Section 260, that is registered to a farmer and driven by the farmer or an employee of the farmer, and is used in conducting commercial agricultural operations, including, but not limited to, transporting agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to, or from, a farm.
(5)A tow truck, as defined in Section 615.
(f)This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.
(g)This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property.


A valid loophole, California law does not prohibit drivers from dialing their phones, but dui lawyers advise against it as the cops are looking for any phone contact to pull someone over. Sometimes they pull people over for putting a burrito to their mouth.

An officer’s subjective conclusion the “texting wile driving” law has been violated also does not support a detention if he/she is wrong. Police error about the requirements for traffic detentions, good faith or not, do not support the stop and ensuing warrantless evidence collections. People v. White (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 639, 644; People v. Hernandez (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 5; People v. Butler (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 602, 607; United States v. Mariscal (9th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 1127, 1130 [“If an officer simply does not know the law, and makes a stop based upon objective facts that cannot constitute a violation, his suspicions cannot be reasonable. The chimera created by his imaginings cannot be used against the driver.”]

A suspicion based on such a mistaken view of the
law cannot be the reasonable suspicion required for
the Fourth Amendment, because "the legal justification
[for a traffic stop] must be objectively grounded."
In other words, if an officer makes a traffic stop
based on a mistake of law, the stop violates the
Fourth Amendment.
United States v. Twilley (9th Cir. 2000) 222 F.3d 1092, 1096

See also United States v. King, 244 F.3d 736, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2001) (a mistaken
belief that a driver's conduct violated the law could not support a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, even if the officer otherwise behaved reasonably).


During CHP's first overzealous cell phone crackdown in November, more than 1,100 drivers were ticketed for talking or texting during a 2-day period.

The latest numbers showed more drivers seem to be getting the message, but officers also said fewer agencies were involved in this operation, attorneys are told.

Fines vary by county, but court costs and other fees reach $150.

Monday, January 24, 2011

DUI warrant sweep Monday by one California Police Department, lawyers warn others may be on the way

Forget to pay a fine? Turn in proof of a California DUI alcohol program or classes on time? Well, attorneys should be contacted to get extensions but if not....what happens?

This: A DUI warrant sweep Monday by the La Mesa Police Department - 46 folks for outstanding warrants—involving cases of DUI.

These drunk driving cases had been issued in the past months were identified, say lawyers who practice DUI law in California.

"Several teams of officers attempted to locate these subjects at their last known residential address or place of business," DUI lawyers heard. "In the end, six of these subjects were located and arrested for the outstanding warrants" on charges of violating probation or failing to show for their court hearings.

"This warrant detail serves as yet another reminder to the citizens of our community that the La Mesa Police Department will not tolerate drunk drivers or those people that fail to complete their court mandated sentencing conditions as a result of a DUI arrest," attorneys are told.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Breathalyzers tell you how much fat you are burning off during workouts

Breathalyzers tell you how much fat you are burning off during workouts.

Made by British scientists, these gadgets will be able to tell you the moment when a sweaty session on the treadmill finally starts to pay off by detecting when the body has used up its supply of food energy and switches to breaking down fat instead.

Exercise machines estimate when gym rats go into the "fat burning zone".

This (DUI-like) breathalyzer operates via picking up minute changes in the levels of a molecule called acetone in people's breath, which is given off when the body starts to burn fat.

Professor Gus Hancock, a chemist at Oxford University who has set up a company, Oxford Medical Diagnostics, to develop the machine: "Acetone is a molecule that is produced by people who are burning fat rather than food.

"This is of great interest in sport studies and dietary studies to find out how people have worked out in the gym. That is an area we are trying to explore and we are trying to produce a monitor of how well you have burned off some body fat."

California DUI lawyers are interested in this invention.

Thinking you probably need the best California DUI attorney around to aggressively defend your San Diego California drunk driving case

It's Saturday night. You're out. Having fun. Minding your own business. "Do I really need this DUI?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are thinking you probably need the best California DUI attorney around to aggressively defend your San Diego California drunk driving case.



A

Superb-rated

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, your San Diego California 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.



Hiring a highly-rated, top San Diego DUI California lawyer representation will ensure avoidance, minimization, substitution or reduction of San Diego jail time.



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



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



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



A first California DUI / drunk driving offense is frequently 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 California DUI attorney will be one with over 28 years of experience and expertise in San Diego California drunk driving cases. Excellent San Diego California court outcomes and satisfied clients will also be illustrative of the talent of your San Diego California DUI / drunk driving criminal attorney.



San Diego California DUI attorney Mueller taught 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 also lectured at the annual California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - DUI seminar

. 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.


San Diego DUI law firms provide free initial consultation to learn more about your case. To find the best California DUI criminal defense lawyer, visit

now

.


Try a Free California DUI Lawyer Evaluation

at this online DUI consultation survey

.



In order to save your driver's license & driving privileges, your San Diego California DUI lawer has only 10 calendar days to contact DMV!





To prevail, all a California DMV attorney has to do for you is successfully challenge just 1 of the 3 required DMV issues to avoid the administrative suspension of your driving privileges & you save the DMV reissue fee and/or SR-22 Insurance filing!

Video of San Diego California DUI / DMV Attorney



Thursday, January 20, 2011

Uniform procedures and standards for crime labs are need in California, from DUI cases to murder cases, attorneys proclaim

Uniform procedures and standards for crime labs are need in California, from DUI cases to murder cases, attorneys proclaim.

One California assemblyman is stepping up with this bill to develop guidelines for policies and procedures for the collection and handling of eyewitness evidence in criminal investigations by all law enforcement agencies operating in California.

These laws would garner public trust and the reliability, addressing two key components that make up the backbone of our criminal justice system.

“The problems with San Francisco’s crime lab are just the tip of the iceberg both here and across the state. Without effective oversight to guarantee the integrity of evidence and standard procedures for eyewitness identification, we put both victims and the accused at risk. Our criminal justice system must reflect our society’s values and ensure that the end result is real justice for all involved”!

Drivers who get tired after a few hours of driving can have the same effect as being over the .08 BAC limit, making mistakes like a DUI driver

Drivers who get tired after a few hours of driving can have the same effect as being over the BAC limit, Dutch researchers tell DUI criminal defense attorneys and drunk driving lawyer prosecutors in California.

Researchers at Utrecht University in the Netherlands say 2 hours of highway driving in the dark can affect performance the same as having a couple of drinks.

Unlike alcohol, cops cannot measure if a driver is affected by fatigue or to what extent.

In the study, 14 healthy young men ages 21 to 25 drove under supervision for 2, 4 and 8 hours at a time through the night.

Drivers drove a constant 80 mph and remain in the center of their traffic lane as a video recorded the safety of their driving.

The results, published in the Journal of Sleep Research, showed that after 2 hours of driving they were already making the same mistakes they would if they had .05% blood alcohol content.

At 3 hours, their performance corresponded to .08% BAC.

"Our data show that drivers should take sleepiness behind the wheel seriously," the researchers said in a report on their findings. "It is one of the primary causes of accidents on motorways."

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Click on the statewide site here for a DUI program in California

California drivers needing a restricted license after dealing with a drunk driving case can check out this attorney's new website assisting such people.

For example, San Diego drivers can visit this link for immediate assistance in enrolling in the required program.

For California drivers outside of San Diego County, click on the statewide site here for a DUI program in every California county, listing address, phone numbers and directors of the DUI classes.

What if the California driver exercise his right not to incriminate himself and refuses to engage in DUI/drunk driving acrobatics designed to not pass

Field Coordination Tests are routinely done by a California DUI cop when he or she suspects you've been drinking, lawyers know.

But what if the California driver exercise his right not to incriminate himself and refuses to engage in drunk driving acrobatics designed to flunk in a questionable if not subjective manner, attorneys are asked.

DUI FST gymnastics include walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand, and horizontal-gaze-nystagmus test (eye test).

Why would a California driver refuse to try something he's never done if he is innocent of DUI?

Don’t only guilty people refuse to do DUI field sobriety tests? Hardly.

Numerous justifiable explanations account for innocent people declining a California DUI officer’s insistence to try doing them under incredibly weird conditions: dark, cold, nervous, cars flying by, incline, uncoordinated, previously injured, sick, tired, right to not incriminate since cop is not scoring your good performance, or you name it!

Last year, the Supreme Court of Virginia added these justifications:

"There are numerous innocent reasons why a person may refuse to engage in tests that are not required by law, including that a person may be tired, may lack physical dexterity, may have a limited ability to speak the English language, or simply may be reluctant to submit to subjective assessments by a police officer."

Jones v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 52, 58 (2010)

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Instead of a true California judge who went to law school and was once an attorney, a DUI driver gets his or her hearing presided by a State employee

Instead of a true California judge who went to law school and was once an attorney, a DUI driver gets his or her hearing presided by a State employee of the DMV. That's right, every month, California writes this person a check for suspending licenses. Sacramento mandates certain state-authorized approaches to suspend. Fair?

Unfairly, the DMV hearing officer objects to your evidence, rules on her or his own objection, usually ignores the contentions of one's San Diego DUI / DMV lawyer, and admit or not admit either party's evidence, almost always admitting DMV's evidence. Hmmm.

The actual evidence comes in as documents and witnesses. One often sees the drunk driving police report, DMV records, California DUI laboratory alcohol reports and the critical, multi-faced officer's sworn statement entitled a "DS 367."

Monday, January 17, 2011

A premier California DUI lawyer has only 10 calendar days to serve a DMV Hearing Request on a local DMV Office of Driver Safety to stop suspension

10. A premier California DUI lawyer has only 10 calendar days to serve a DMV Hearing Request on a local DMV Office of Driver Safety to stop the suspension of your license!



If you yourself contacted DMV to get a date and that date did not work for your California DUI lawyer, DMV will not change the date. What does that mean? Unfortunately your options may be limited in that you very well may not get the California DUI attorney of your choice. No hurry - just make sure your California DUI lawyer contacts DMV by the 10th day from your arrest.



9. 10 day time limit is calculated from the DUI arrest date or the issue date of that pink SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. If time is running out or you are late, contact a California DUI lawyer.



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 California DUI 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 California DUI 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 California DUI 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 California DUI chemical test. (See reverse side of DMV paper.)



Issues are whether the California DUI cop had probable cause to stop or contact you or whether the chemical test evidence can be attacked by your California DUI attorney.



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, your California DUI lawyer wins!



1. All a California 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!







San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney in California

Saturday, January 15, 2011

California's DUI "EVALUATION FORM"

at online California attorney DUI

Superb-rated

California Drunk Driving DMV & DUI Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller specializes in California DUI and DMV law. California criminal defense lawyers who attend Rick's seminars have indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller's presentations and materials were fantastic as DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru".



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



California's DUI "EVALUATION FORM"

at this online California attorney DUI consultation site


California Lawyer DUI Help


California Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Friday, January 14, 2011

Supreme Court struggles to find proper test for determining when police are prohibited from justifying warrantless search with exigent circumstances

While oral argument was heard in Kentucky v. King, the Supreme court struggled with exigent circumstances. Because neither side supported the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision, it struggled to find the proper test for determining when police are prohibited from justifying a warrantless search with exigent circumstances that they create.

A two-prong test, a straightforward affirmance seems very unlikely; instead, the Court focused on whether the state’s proposed “lawfulness” test or another of the five tests currently being used by lower courts is best.

Joshua D. Farley, an Assistant Attorney General in Kentucky, argued on behalf of the state, and he advocated a lawfulness test: as long as the police officer’s actions that created the exigent circumstances were lawful, the evidence will not be suppressed. Farley shared his time with Ann O’Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, who argued on behalf of the United States. She agreed that a lawfulness test is appropriate and preferable to either the “holistic reasonableness” test advanced by Justice Kagan or a “bad faith” prong advanced by Justice Breyer.

After establishing that probable cause (in this case, the smell of marijuana) must exist before and independent of the exigent circumstances (here, the sounds and movement that led police to believe evidence was being destroyed), the Justices were eager to supply hypotheticals to test the limits of the state’s proposed test. The Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor asked whether officers could go every two weeks to an apartment building where they know there is a lot of drug activity, knock on all the doors where they smell marijuana, and enter as soon as they hear people moving or a toilet flushing; Farley responded that such actions “would be perfectly fine.” In his view, even if officers had threatened to kick down the door if the occupants didn’t open it, if the officers heard sounds of evidence being destroyed, it would “still [be] fine under a lawfulness test.”

On the other hand, if the defendant had answered the door or had not made any sounds, the officers would not have been able to enter, although they could have asked for permission to enter. Any evidence from that consensual search would be allowed; as Justice Scalia explained, that would be “taking advantage of the stupidity of the criminals,” and “the one thing that [law enforcement] has going for it is that criminals are stupid.”

At various times during the argument, the Justices expressed worry that the lawfulness rule would effectively eliminate the warrant requirement. Justice Kagan declared that “if there is one place where the warrant requirement has real force, it’s in the home,” while Justice Sotomayor worried that this rule would justify “a simple warrantless entry in any drug case” because “any police officer will come in and say: In my experience, most drug dealers destroy evidence when we knock.” Farley responded that there would still be a totality of the circumstances inquiry to determine whether exigent circumstances existed at all; this threshold requirement ensures that unreasonable searches will not occur.

O’Connell agreed that without exigent circumstances, the warrantless search will always be impermissible. When Justice Sotomayor asked whether the police could lawfully enter if someone opens and closes a door in the back to leave in response to a knock from the police, O’Connell did not believe that was an exigent circumstance. She explained that “police would have to be able to articulate to a court that they objectively, reasonably believed that there was destruction of evidence occurring inside.” In this case, she argued, that concern is irrelevant: the question presented assumes that those exigent circumstances exist, and it is the Kentucky Supreme Court’s job to determine whether that assumption is correct.

Arguing for respondent Hollis Deshaun King, Jamesa J. Drake focused her argument on the facts of the case, resulting in some frustration among the Justices. When Drake contended that there was no exigency in this case, Chief Justice Roberts quickly interrupted her, suggesting that the underlying facts were not “terribly relevant” because the exigency issue would be addressed on remand. Drake countered that the legal question could not be answered without first establishing that exigent circumstances were present, but Justice Kennedy explained that the Court was only interested in “whether or not the police may create exigent circumstances and use those exigent circumstances to enter.” Drake emphasized that because the case has been dismissed, the question whether there were exigent circumstances cannot be addressed on remand. However, the Chief Justice again protested, suggesting that because the Court had already considered that argument in her motion to dismiss the case as improvidently granted “[a]nd, yet, [] nonetheless decided to have argument, . . . maybe it would be best to move on to the legal issue.”

Drake again returned to the facts of the case, arguing that the officers’ actions were impermissible because they were “banging, not knocking” on the door and demanding to be allowed inside even though they lacked a warrant. The Chief Justice, however, construed this argument by Drake as an effort “to change the case,” and Justice Scalia agreed that “the case before us is what if the police officers are behaving perfectly lawfully and they’re not threatening to kick the door down.” Although there may be “considerable support on the Court for the proposition” that illegal action by police officers cannot create a permissible exigent circumstance, Justice Scalia deemed that a very different question from the one in front of them. Even Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that “it’s not clear from this record which of the two the police did.”

Justice Breyer pushed Drake on the appropriate test for clearly legal action, like a simple knock. Drake responded that an officer acts unreasonably if a reasonable person would have thought that entry was imminent and inevitable. Several Justices attempted to determine how this test differs from the government’s test of lawfulness. Justice Kagan asked whether both parties agree on the test, but merely disagree about what is “lawful.” Chief Justice Roberts pushed for an example of conduct that would be unreasonable but not unlawful, but Drake could not identify one. When asked why she prefers “unreasonable” rather than “unlawful,” Drake replied, “Because, frankly, I’m not sure what [unlawful] means.” “You don’t know what unlawful means, but you do know what unreasonable means?” Chief Justice Roberts countered.

Though Drake told Justice Ginsburg that her test is “novel” and unlike any of the five tests currently used by lower courts, Justice Breyer disagreed: “Your test [is] not wild. It just says unreasonable in the Fourth Amendment. Probably when they act lawfully, they are acting reasonably and not unreasonably, but it could be sometimes they’re not. That’s your view?” “That’s correct,” she answered. She tried to continue, but Justice Breyer cut her off: “No test. All right.”

Farley used his rebuttal to argue that police action that does not violate the Fourth Amendment cannot impermissibly create an exigency. He argued that the Fourth Amendment already prohibits the practices the Justices fear, so no further inquiry—and no other test—is necessary.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Award-winning San Diego DUI, DMV & Drunk Driving Defense Evaluation

Precious California DUI Lawyers offer free San Diego California DUI consultations for San Diego California DUI court and San Diego California DMV. Complete the San Diego California DUI Survey for a free online evaluation to.

Here's one: DUI Defense Attorney Rick Mueller is a Superb-rated San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 28 years of experience. He spoke at illustrious California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

. A plethora of California criminal defense lawyers who attended said point-blank to Vince Tucci, the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller's presentation and materials were phenomenal.



Award-winning San Diego DUI, DMV & Drunk Driving Defense Evaluation

at this online DUI consultation site

for the first step in the right direction.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

A new study found cell phones may actually keep some drivers safer, so not more dangerous than DUI drivers

The anti-cell phone protesters are driven by a mantra that a driver with a cell phone is more dangerous than a DUI driver.

However, a new study found cellular phones may keep a number of drivers safer.

The original claim grew from research by psychologists at the University of Utah in 2003, who used driving simulators to test volunteers' reactions while talking and while DUI or drunk. The result: "Driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk," the researchers reported.

That claim has since become part of the accepted canon about road safety, repeated by everyone from Oprah to U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in his campaign against distracted driving. Eight states, including California, have made talking on a handheld cell phone while driving illegal. Even Mythbusters ran an experiment similar to the Utah research last April, and got the same result. And It sounds like common sense: Splitting your mind's attention between the road and whatever someone's blathering into your ear over a cell phone must be dangerous.

Talking On Your Cell Phone Could Make You Drive SaferExcept no one's really been able to prove that it works that way on the road. Drunk driving causes about 7% of all crashes and 40% of fatal U.S. crashes every year. Given how often we're talking on the phone, the streets should be a "Mad Max"-like hellscape of broken glass and bleeding victims. Yet as cellphone use has gone up, crashes have continued to decline.

The new study comes from economists Saurabh Bhargava at the University of Chicago and Vikram Pathania of the London School of Economics. They come at the question from a different direction, starting by using data from a cell phone company on up to 440,000 calls made from California drivers during an 11-day period in 2005. The researchers were able to separate drivers from other users by filtering for calls that switched among cell towers.

Their earlier research showed that when cell phone companies had rates that dropped at 9 p.m. on Monday through Thursday nights, calling jumped up. The economists matched their calling data with crash reports for just before and just after 9 p.m, when they could prove calls from drivers on the road increased, and found no significant increase in crashes. When they expanded their scope to additional years and nearby states, there was still no rise in wrecks.

Explanations? The economists offer three possible takes. People who start talking while driving become more cautious. People who act like jackholes behind the wheel with a cellphone will act the same without one. And although cellphones clearly distract some drivers, they may also help other drivers stay alert.

Research like this should cause some reflection among the zealous anti-phone and driving types. Not to mention what seems like common sense isn't always sensical when it comes to auto safety.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Crime laboratories can be a breeding ground for corruption, incompetence, mismanagement and unreliable/untrustworthy lab results, say DUI attorneys

DUI Lawyers in California know that crime labs are in bad shape and have been for some time. California courts in DMV cases have noted this.

San Diego DUI attorneys blogged about knowledge by the San Diego Crime Lab, almost four months ago.

San Diego crime labs do not have as high as credentials as other labs.

As science improved and criminal defense attorneys became more informed and as some crime lab managers and their accreditation body have shown themselves to be callous and shameless in their incompetence and corruption, it has become obvious that the long-standing system of walled-off self-government of crime labs is fatally flawed.

The press began to find out about the problem of inexcusably bad management of crime labs.

Initially, whenever a problem was discovered or became too big to deny, crime lab managers blamed it on a single rogue analyst. Now, read this.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Retaining a quality, experienced and knowledgeable DUI / DMV attorney increases the odds of winning to somewhere between 40% and 70%, lawyers say

Engaging a DUI lawyer to take on City Hall with a DMV mask? Why not? According to the DMV's own statistics for a recent year, 34% of all persons who were suspended for Drunk Driving at the time of a DUI arrest saved their license after their attorneys timely timely requested a administrative per se hearing to contest the suspension.

Retaining a quality, experienced and knowledgeable DUI / DMV attorney increases the odds of winning to somewhere between 40% and 70%, depending upon the skills of the California DUI lawyer, hearing location and the particular hearing officer that your case is assigned to.

10. If you need to save your driver's license or privileges, your California DUI 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 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 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 an 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.



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 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!






Click on below sites for more information or to contact a California DUI Lawyer who can help:

California DUI Attorney


Video of San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney

Sunday, January 9, 2011

DUI Attorney Avvo.com Reviews for California Criminal Defense Drunk Driving Lawyer Rick Mueller

Great DUI Attorney

Posted by: Steven, a DUI client, 2010-12-14 26 days ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-6 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
I hired Rick to represent my in my second DUI case. He got a very favorable offer from the D.A. and kept me out of jail.
Add a comment
STOP RIGHT HERE! RICK MUELLER IS WITHOUT QUESTION THE LAWYER YOU WANT AND NEED!

Posted by: MICHAEL, a DUI client, 2010-12-07 about 1 month ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-6 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with more than 10 lawyers.

Client Review:
DUI is the mother of all nightmares! As a parent, I got that horrendous 3AM call from may daughter- DUI arrest, in jail-oh my god, now what do I do? After the bail out, I needed to find the absoutely VERY BEST DUI attorney on the face of this earh and gratefully, I did! Do not go any further in your search. Rick Mueller literally 'wrote the book(s)'. In my humble opinion, NO ONE is more knowledegable than Rick in this field. If there is an equal, I haven't found him/her. Rick puts you quickly at ease with his incredible timely response to your initial call and that is only the beginning. Rick is straight-forward. He does not sugar coat the issue and the prospects. What he does do is give you the facts and no 'BS'. He tells it like it is his depth of knowledge is such that you cannot help but be confident in his ability to achieve the best possible outcome. Believe me, this is a minefield to be traveled and Rick will get you through it step by step. Rick is ALWAYS AVAILABLE. HE RESPONDS TO EMAILS with LIGHTNING SPEED IN DETAIL! Rick is the 'real deal'-period. Get him on your case-it will be the best thing to come out of this nightmare! He will get you through it with the best possible outcome.
Add a comment
EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS

Posted by: a DUI client, 2010-11-03 2 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-6 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
Even though they say a lawyer cannot help with a dui I took the chance...and I am SO glad I did. I thought there was no possible way of avoiding conviction but Rick made it happen. Pled to a dry reckless...a small fine and 20AA classes..that is all!! I still can't believe it.

I also asked for him to get an extension on the amount of time I had to complete my classes and payment and it was done...easy as that.

I would definitely recommend Rick to anyone facing a DUI conviction. He comes through with everything he tells you...he's easy to work with and takes away all of your worries.
Add a comment
Hiring Rick Mueller was the best decision!

Posted by: Jessica, a DUI client, 2010-11-02 2 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-6 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with no lawyers.

Client Review:
Mr. Mueller was an excellent lawyer who exceeded all my expectations. He saved my license and my criminal record. He saved me the large amount of money I would have had to pay for the DUI fine as well as my insurance from going up. He is reassuring and confident in his work. My family and I cannot explain the gratitude of his hard-working effort in winning my case.
Add a comment
Awesome DUI Attorney

Posted by: Cole, a DUI client, 2010-10-29 2 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 6-12 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 3-5 lawyers.

Client Review:
Rick Mueller was an amazing DUI attorney. He knows the ins and outs of his field and I would rank him as an excellent attorney. I was pulled over for tinted windows and had a BAC of 0.11. Rick was able to get my case down to a wet reckless and provided instant responses to all of my questions along the way via text, email, or phone. It's insane how easy he is to get a hold of.

After finishing my driving school class I was late to get in my completion certificate to the court and was given a notice for my arrest. I called Rick nervously, explaining the situation and he calmed me down and told me that if I showed up to the court with the completion certificate, all would be taken care of. I found out about my arrest warrant on a Saturday and once again Rick provided immediate feedback. If I had had to wait until Monday, I would have been very nervous.

There are a multitude of things you have to take care of when you get a DUI and it can be extremely daunting. Rick made the experience easy, I never had to go into a courtroom. He will send you everything you need.
Add a comment
A tough lawyer for tough times.

Posted by: EFitzgerald, a DUI client, 2010-10-22 3 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-6 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
What can you say? Sometimes the odds are stacked against you. You need someone on your side who can explain to you the process with no lawyerspeak. Just the facts, and a promise to do their best. No blame, no shame, just an examination of the case, a proposed strategy, and flawless execution by Rick.

That's why I instanly bonded with Rick. No promises, just a hard look at my case, and hard work to get me an incredible Everything was explained to me each step of the way. My paperwork was filed and cced to me. He made sure every question I had about my case was presented to the DA. The legal jargon was broken down for me, and their were no surprises.

I got the best result I could expect with my circumstances without having to step in court or going before a judge.

I couldn't recommend a better person to have on your team as you go through a difficult process.
Add a comment
Best DUI Lawyer for Medical Professionals

Posted by: a DUI client, 2010-10-19 3 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 4.0 star rating Good
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 6-12 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with no lawyers.

Client Review:
This was probably the BEST investment I've ever made, post DUI.

Getting a DUI is a little bit more complicated for people working in the MEDICAL FIELD. For those working in the medical field, you know how stressful a DUI can be on your medical license and job. Depending on your DUI case, you can LOSE your medical license.

So I obtained the services of Rick Mueller. Rick was very knowledgeable about my rights and ALL of the necessary steps it would take to get me back on track with my Driver's License and Medical License renewal. Rick EVEN called the License Board for me and obtained the exact information I needed to renew my license without complication.

I followed what Rick recommended, finished my DUI program, and received both my Driver's License and Medical License without ANY incident.

If you work in the MEDICAL FIELD and worried about your Medical License because of a DUI, call Rick Mueller now!!!
Add a comment
great!

Posted by: a DUI client, 2010-10-19 3 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 4 star rating Good
Trustworthy 4.0 star rating Good
Responsive 4.0 star rating Good
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 6-12 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
Great person and attorney. Understood the situation and was very successful in calming us down and making it as productive as it could be.
Add a comment
George Mueller-Is a definite recommendable attorney

Posted by: Jessica, a DUI client, 2010-10-15 3 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-6 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with no lawyers.

Client Review:
Mr. Mueller was an excellent lawyer who exceeded all my expectations. He saved my license and my criminal record. He saved me the large amount of money I would have had to pay for the DUI fine as well as my insurance from going up. He is reassuring and confident in his work. My family and I cannot explain the gratitude of his hard-working effort in winning my case.
Add a comment
Dui on Miramar as a Civilian

Posted by: Jessica, a DUI client, 2010-10-13 3 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-6 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with no lawyers.

Client Review:
I came to Rick two days after my incident. From the start he was helpful, informative, and always extremely quick to respond to my emails. I never once had the thought that my case was going out of Rick's control. I blew a .181 and Rick got my DUI reduced to a $1,000 fine, and thats all! Overall one of the best possible experiences I could have hoped for in light of the situation. Rick, you are the best!
Add a comment
Competent, Honest, DUI Attorney in San Diego

Posted by: Jerry, a DUI client, 2010-10-11 3 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-6 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 3-5 lawyers.

Client Review:
Rick Mueller did an excellent job defending me when I was charged with a DUI in San Diego County. I use the word DEFENDING, because REPRESENTING is not strong enough to describe his efforts on my behalf.

Not only did Rick actually listen to my version of the events and take great notes (he did not ask the same question twice and was actually paying attention) he explained the law, the process, the risks, the costs, and the options throughout the entire process. He always followed up promptly, and MOST OF ALL, HE GOT RESULTS!

He worked tirelessly to defend me at the DMV hearing which had a successful outcome! He appeared on my behalf FOUR times in court, and in fact I never stepped foot into a courtroom! He always kept me informed of everything he was doing, and in the end, he got me the plea that kept my license, eliminated the community service, eliminated the counseling, and even reduced the AA meetings and the fine! And I was not convicted of a DUI, all thanks to Rick.

Rick was also very reasonable and up front about the costs. He had a lump-sum fee that I paid up front, and that was it! He really stepped up for me when I needed someone to defend me.

Without reservation, I recommend Rick Mueller to anyone in San Diego that has been charged with a DUI or similar offense who needs competent legal representation.

On a personal note, he's also a nice guy with a good sense of humor.
Add a comment
Great Lawyer

Posted by: a DUI client, 2010-09-17 4 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
The best DUI lawyer in San Diego! Every law professional who went over my case with me was amazed at the results that Rick was able to get for my DUI case. He was also someone that I could count on after my case was over. Whenever I had questions relating to my case he was also willing to take the time and go over things with me. He is truly someone who you would want on your side!
Add a comment
Great Lawyerd

Posted by: a DUI client, 2010-09-15 4 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 6-12 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
The best DUI lawyer in San Diego! Every law professional who went over my case with me was amazed at the results that Rick was able to get for my DUI case. He was also someone that I could count on after my case was over. Whenever I had questions relating to my case he was also willing to take the time and go over things with me. He is truly someone who you would want on your side!
Add a comment
The best DUI attorney in San Diego

Posted by: a DUI client, 2010-04-30 8 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 6-12 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
After receiving my first DUI, I was clueless on how to handle my case. When coming across Rick's extensive background and experience with handling DUI's, I knew he was the best attorney to go with. He kept me well informed on the entire process and was always available to answer my questions. I would definitely recommend him for anyone who has received a DUI, as he will help you to maintain your driving privileges and ensure that you're well taken care of during such a turbulent time.
Add a comment
Best attorney I have ever met

Posted by: a DUI client, 2010-04-16 9 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 6-12 months ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
If you need help with a DUI or DMV issue, there is no better attorney you could hire. Mr. Mueller is amazing and did an amazing job for me.
Add a comment
RICK IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST !!!

Posted by: ELSIE, a DUI client, 2010-03-10 10 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George more than 3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
Don't bother shopping around, because Rick truly is the expert. My BAC was .30 and he was able to have the DUI reduced to Public Intoxication. Fine was reduced, suspended license reinstated, no effect on my insurance, no community service. How's that for results !?! Virtual real-time communication ... all questions and concerns were handled courteously and promptly. I paid one flat (reasonable) fee and never had to appear in court. Rick eased my mind and made the whole process very simple. He was my savior and I am extremely grateful ! I highly recommend Rick Mueller to anyone in this type of situation. Again Rick - many, many thanks !
Add a comment
Tracijo

Posted by: Traci, a DUI client, 2010-03-08 10 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with no lawyers.

Client Review:
I was satisfied with the outcome from pending charges. Mr Muller responded to all my needs and questions.
Add a comment
Excellent representation

Posted by: Kambiz, a DUI client, 2010-03-06 10 months ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 3-5 lawyers.

Client Review:
I was involved in a DUI case which included an auto accident. When I talked to Mr. Mueller, he explained clearly the process and the cost. I hired him to represent me and he was always available and his work was excellent. I am very happy with the his representation and I highly recommend him. (Don't waste your time to talk to anybody else Mr. Mueller is the right attorney for your case.)
Add a comment
an education

Posted by: John, a DUI client, 2010-01-04 about 1 year ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
Let me first say that despite Rick's best efforts, I did not win my DUI case, though it was reduced to a wet reckless (and we did not prevail in the APS either). Despite that, I want to give Rick a great review.
From the day I contacted Rick, he had useful practical advice that no other lawyer I contacted offered.
By making these suggestions and giving me a LOT of information along the way, he helped me understand how both the APS and criminal courts worked and what would happen next. I had never been arrested before and the time was stressful enough. Rick helped reduce this and I got a plea bargain that I could live with.
I was on the phone with Rick during the APS hearing and he did a great job of speaking my case. There were some complications in my case that Rick did a great job of explaining.
In short, Rick is a true professional that has a great deal of experience and knowledge and I would recommend him to anyone in need of a great DUI attorney...
Add a comment
Choose a Lawyer Wisely...There can be a huge difference in the outcome.

Posted by: waynecalhoun777, a DUI client, 2009-06-04 over 1 year ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 3-5 lawyers.

Client Review:
A DUI charge is not to be neglected. I quickly saw the differences in attorneys claiming to be the best, or better, to make garauntees. Trust Rick, he will not let you down, and he is very quick to respond. I am very impressed with Rick Mueller, and I work around many professional people. His knowledge of the DUI procedures is pretty impressive. Don't risk failure, call Rick Mueller.
Add a comment
Appreciative Client

Posted by: a DUI client, 2009-04-19 over 1 year ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George more than 3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
You have been very accessable and always responded on a timely manner to all my questions and concerns.

I extend all our graditude on behalf of my family, my job, and myself.

Thank you again Rick
Add a comment
Great for Boating Under the Influence too!!

Posted by: a client, 2009-04-17 over 1 year ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 4.0 star rating Good

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George more than 3 years ago.
* I have previously worked with 3-5 lawyers.

Client Review:
Rick is great for BUI's too!
I recieved ....
no community service
no mandated counceling
no points on driving record
Thanks Rick
Add a comment
DUI Expungement by Rick Mueller

Posted by: heattysteen, a DUI client, 2009-04-15 over 1 year ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 4.0 star rating Good
Responsive 4.0 star rating Good
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 3-5 lawyers.

Client Review:
He was a great lawyer and I would use him again and recommend him. I live up in the LA area so I was never able to meet Rick in person but he kept me well informed and handled my case very well.
Add a comment
Multiple DUI Offender

Posted by: a DUI client, 2009-04-08 almost 2 years ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George more than 3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
Rick really helped me feel as ease and in control during the toughest part of my life. He kept me positive and reminded me that things would be ok. I needed constant communication to know things were progressing - he handled a plea bargain for me that I agreed with and I never had to be in court. I highly recommend Rick Mueller to represent anyone with any DUI related offense.
Add a comment
DUI survey

Posted by: a DUI client, 2009-04-07 almost 2 years ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George more than 3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
Hi Rick,

Your representation was awesome. We didn't even have a face to face. Everything was done by e-mail / mail and you took it from there.

Your fees are very reasonable, unlike PLC. You must have a great reputation. My feeling is this. If anybody that I know needs a DUI attorney, I will refer him / her to you. It was a pleasure in doing business with you and convenient for me as well.

You are a true professional and an attorney that one can rely on.

I recall you mentioning that after the plea deal (which was minimal) a substitute prosecutor was involved in the case and wanted to pursue a different course of action, however, you had already obtained the minimal plea deal with the previous prosecutor in writing including his signature.

Must of been a gratifying moment to be sure. Thanks again, and all the best to you.

Respectfully,

Kevin W.
Add a comment
The best legal respresentation I could have hoped for!

Posted by: a DUI client, 2009-04-07 almost 2 years ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
The was the worst experience of my life and I almost did not hire an attorney. I did not believe there was anything a lawyer could do to help. Boy was I wrong!
Rick Mueller provided incredible representation. He was incredibly professional, answered all of my questions, put me at ease and was very responsive.
I was very surprised at the deal he was able to secure for me and VERY grateful.
I would recommend Rick Mueller to anyone that is need of a true professional.
Add a comment
review for Rick

Posted by: pegasus12, a DUI client, 2009-04-07 almost 2 years ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 5 star rating Excellent
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 5.0 star rating Excellent

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
Rick was there every step of the process and kept us informed about was was going to happen. He is very knowledgeable about all aspects of the law.He was indeed a great help. We could e-mail him any time of the day and he would get back to us within 30 mins.
Add a comment
Got my license back after 2nd DUI conviction

Posted by: theo_bercot, a DUI client, 2009-03-25 almost 2 years ago. Flag as objectionable
Overall rating 4 star rating Good
Trustworthy 5.0 star rating Excellent
Responsive 5.0 star rating Excellent
Knowledgeable 5.0 star rating Excellent
Kept me informed 4.0 star rating Good

* I recommend George Mueller.
* I used George 1-3 years ago.
* George handled my DUI / DWI matter.
* I have previously worked with 1-2 lawyers.

Client Review:
I got a DUI in San Diego with a Indiana prior. The courts found out about the IN prior, but the DMV did not. I told Rick that I needed to keep my license or else I would lose my job. I plead no contest to the courts, and have to do the required programs and fees. However, Rick won my DMV trial, and since they didn't know about my IN prior, I got my restricted license even after registering for the 18 month DUI program (for multiple convictions). As Rick will tell you, it can be frustrating not being involved with the day-to-day processes, but let Rick do his job. I have a lot of work to do for the court conviction, but with a 0.26 BAC, I really have to own up. All I care about is that he got my license back and I didn't lose my job (and don't have to spend cab fare on all of the programs I have to attend)!