Thursday, February 28, 2013

Disbarment for a California attorney not candid in a DUI manslaughter conviction in a gated community drunk driving accident after the ".18%" California attorney's Bentley hit an 85 year old man walking to a bus with his cane

California DUI lawyers remind attorneys convicted of just a misdemeanor DUI they do not have to self-report to the State.  However, when it's a felony, a hit and run, a death, or moral turpitude, it's a different situation, emphasize California DUI attorneys.

A judge who presides over California State Bar cases recommends disbarment for an alleged "less-than-candid" California attorney with a DUI manslaughter conviction.  The California lawyer's neighbor died in a gated community drunk driving accident after the California attorney's Bentley hit an eighty-five year old man walking to the bus with his cane.

The California attorney did not go to jail for his .18% DUI manslaughter, instead serving ninety days of electronic home detention. Nonetheless, the California State Bar Judge found the requisite "moral turpitude" in order to disbar, based on "not credible" defense claims asserted in California court.

The California lawyer told DUI police the victim was engaged in "a sort of hobbled sprint" and jumped in front of his Bentley.   The windshield got smashed.  The victim was bleeding with a serious head injury.  The California attorney drove apx. 1 mile to the guardhouse seeking help.  The California lawyer apparently could have went to some neighboring homes although it's questionable whether anyone would have been there to answer the door or assist in this senior area.

He told the cops he had 1 beer but apparently had more than that, including vodka.  Leaving the scene + lying to the California DUI cop were 2 facts cited by the deciding Judge.

While conscious shortly after the collision, unfortunately the victim died 3 days after the drunk driving accident.  The California attorney's insurance company settled with the victims' daughters.  It cleverly included a stipulation that the daughters would NOT ask the criminal court that  the California lawyer serve jail.

Monday, February 25, 2013

How to tell a cop "NO THANK YOU" every time requested or asked at a Checkpoint - one video approach, say California DUI attorneys.

February 25, 2013

This is a Public Service Announcement:

There are different approaches on how to handle a checkpoint, say California DUI attorneys.   If you were not able to avoid the roadblock, you can take the approach of this motorist who exercised his right to say "No, thank you," California DUI lawyers point out.

Cops are used to people doing what they say.  They have guns, badges, cones, police cars, flashing lights and other fancy equipment.  Plus they are a pretty big team of guys at these U.S. checkpoints.  "Police presence."  Ooh. Aren't you scared of us?  Comply!  We have guns for crying out loud.

Every time this driver is asked a question or to go to another point, he says "No Thank You."  He repeatedly insists on NOT complying with their requests and not answering their questions.  He just wants to go "free on his way!"

Politely insisting on your right to travel is one approach.  It's THE APPROACH by this gutsy driver.

Lots of San Diego California DUI checkpoint locations are set forth at this free lawyer site service.

California DMV has outlined its California DUI checkpoint policy - see this attorney article.

California's checkpoint laws as far as DUI cases are set forth in this lawyer article.  You're supposed to be able to avoid a checkpoint or have the option to do so, maybe not so much like this guy, though, in this video.

Know your rights.

Stand up for them.

Friday, February 22, 2013

From DUI Cop of the Year to Unemployed - 400 drunk driving arrests in 1 year was not possible unless DUI Police Reports falsified or conclusions incorrect - lawyers sue

A good chunk of California drivers stopped by San Diego DUI police wonder if the cops really had a legitimate reason to stop them, lawyers are told.

There's a big difference between violating a traffic law and driving just fine, California DUI attorneys remind.

Sometimes drunk driving police cause the California driver to make a mistake.  See this San Diego County DUI Law Center article.

A Utah DUI cop is being sued for purportedly filing incorrect drunk driving reports.  For ten years, Lisa Steed had hounded drivers as a state trooper of the year.   She set records for most DUI arrests.

Lawyers insist on challenging her to save lives and careers of clients otherwise victims of unlawful stops.

It took a number of her DUI cases to get dismissed before the lawsuit was triggered.  Now the lawsuit goes after the Highway Patrol for not questioning her abnormal ability of booking an unrealistically high number of DUI arrests.  Ultimately she was taken off patrol and now is not working for them.

She had four hundred DUI arrests a few years ago as the top Member of the "DUI squad."   That was MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH DUI arrests than any other highway patrol officer.

She told a reporter her search & stop technique was a "numbers game," meaning that she thought 1 out of every ten drivers she stopped for any purported violation was driving DUI.  She thought the more drivers she stopped, the more it increased her chances of meeting a drunk driver.   So what if it was an unlawful detention to begin with.

She ran into an investigating fellow officer who thought some of her drunk driving bookings made no sense as   arrestees did not have signs of DUI impairment or passed breath tests.  Most of her Drug arrests hinged on "leg & body tremors" or "dilated pupils."

In San Diego, when a California DUI arrest is made without probable cause, a suppression motion can be made.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

What's happening in these Camp Pendleton California DUI cases where citations are given for San Diego U.S. District Court and for the Base Magistrate 'Court?'", attorneys are asked

You don't expect to get a DUI on base at Camp Pendleton military base, San Diego California, attorneys say, but it CAN happen.

If you look at your paperwork, one says a violation notice to appear in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; another may say ARMED FORCES TICKET or appear before the Camp Pendleton Base Magistrate Court.

The latter is not actually a court.  It's an administrative action to take away one's on base driving privilege.  No California DUI attorney is needed.

The former is the real deal.  That's where you need the best San Diego California DUI lawyer you can find, in order to avoid a drunk driving or DUI "criminal" conviction in the U.S. District Court.

To find out how the public has been confused and what can be done about it, read this new Article published today by the San Diego County DUI Law Center.  

Then sit and wait for your U.S. District Court date to arrive in the mail. Talk about a confusing paper trail!

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Crazy California DUI "drugged driving" bill tries to make it ZERO TOLERANCE for "ANY" detectable drugs in one's system while driving, California DUI attorneys convey

The concept of ZERO TOLERANCE has gotten a little carried away in California, DUI lawyers say.  

With under 21 DUI drivers, it's one thing.  And there's a limit of .01% or .05% depending on age.  

With texting while driving zero tolerance makes sense if the statute is violated.  

But with drugs and driving, it makes no sense, California DUI attorneys emphasize.  Yesterday's video shows how people can drive fine after smoking some marijuana.  Generally only with excessive smoking does it appear marijuana has the ability to affect one's driving.

Yet there is a proposal to make driving with any amount of drugs is against the law.   

Senate Bill 289 was introduced by Lou Correa, an over-reacting democrat from Santa Ana.  The proposed bill establishes a zero tolerance for driving under the influence of drugs.  Under this bill, it would make it illegal for a person to drive a vehicle if her or his blood has any detectable amount of Schedule I, II, III or IV drugs.

The problem is this bill is "presumptive."  As far as marijuana, the bill ignores that NHTSA dismisses the notion that psychomotor impairment may be presumed from the detection of either THC or its metabolite.

This California Senator shows on video is that he does not even know that you CAN be prosecuted for DUI  - drugs with a PRESCRIPTION.  

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) website, THC/blood levels are poor indicators of cannabis-induced impairment. 

Moreover, the detection of the carboxy THC metabolite in urine is not an indicator of impairment. 

NHTSA states: 

"Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose.... 

It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects.... 

It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations.”

(THC-COOH refers to THC metabolites present in urine, which may remain detectable for days or even weeks after past use. THC in the blood possesses a far shorter half-life.)

NORML and California NORML successfully campaigned against similarly illogical legislation last year. 

The public should consider this California DUI attorney information "

Marijuana and Driving Impairment

Barry K Logan PhD " as more scientifically reliable.  For example, see this Discussion:

"[M]arijuana has the ability to produce effects - both sought-after and incidental – which can affect the 
balance of skills and abilities needed to drive safely. These effects can vary in 
magnitude, but frequently when compared to effects of moderate dosing with alcohol, 
(for example to the presumptive level for intoxication in many US states of 0.08g 
ethanol/100mL blood) the impairing effects are less severe, even after the use of typical, 
user-preferred doses. Additionally, the consistent observation that the impairing effects 
of marijuana after moderate use will dissipate in 2-3 hours, limits the likelihood of police 
contact or crash involvement if the driver allows some time to pass between their use and 
driving. The related ability of marijuana users to recognize the drug effect and take a 
less risky course of action also contributes positively to harm reduction."

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

A Closer Look at those who smoke Marijuana and Drive - DUI or Ok to Drive, lawyers ask?

What better way to evaluate the possible effects of marijuana on driving than to have a study with actual drivers get in a vehicle with a driver's education instructor, California DUI attorneys proclaim.  This YouTube  CNN video with over 600,000 viewings depicts 3 such drivers who smoked alot of marijuana before driving a special testing course, say California DUI lawyers.

"Blueberry Trainwreck" marijuana was smoked in Thurston County on site.  Blood tests were gathered later.

In Washington, the arbitrary "legal limit" for marijuana in your system when you drive is 5 nanograms.

A medical marijuana patient driver named 27 year old Addy, a heavy regular user, drove "actually fine" with 15.9 nanograms in her system.  That's three times the legal limit.

She did have one problem.  While learning the course, Addy turned too sharp at a tricky stop sign, knocking over the posted sign.

Then they started giving her more marijuana where she was 7 times the legal limit.  She still drove ok and the instructor had no problems with her.

The second driver is 34 year old Dylan, a weekend smoker, who had no marijuana in his system.  Marijuana was given to him.  After 3/10th of a gram of pot, 5 times the legal limit, he was doing fine behind the wheel.

The final driver is 56 year old Jeff, an occasional user with nothing in his system.  Marijuana was given to him.   He was pretty buzzed, drove cautious and slower than he usually would, which could catch the eye of a DUI officer on the road.  He was 4 times the limit with nearly 22 nanograms in his system.  He drove good.  Slow but acceptable driving.  "He did real well," says the instructor.

Then they stopped driving.  They smoked alot more marijuana, got real stoned and their driving started to show it according to observers.

Dylan started having trouble remembering how to drive the course.  "What is this cone in the middle?"  He turned early and left the track.  He got a second chance but while going around a turn the instructor had to grab the wheel to prevent him from hitting a cameraman that got a little too close.   A cop said he would have stopped him had he seen that driving on the road.

Jeff's driving got worse as he smoked more and more, too.  He backed into and onto a cone.  After 9/10ths of a gram, he drove very slow.  A cop remarked he should not be on the road.  Jeff agreed.  He agreed.

Now Addy, after 9/10ths of a gram, was feeling more aggressive and excited about being behind the wheel so stoned.   She made no major mistakes.  When an officer was asked if he would have pulled her over, he hesitated and said:  "Uh, borderline."

They didn't stop with Addy.  They gave her more!  Up to 1.4 grams, she got behind the wheel yet again.  She was having problems and said she was "way more stoned" over & over.  "I definitely shouldn't be driving."  She continued to drive aggressively and seemed to be driving fine.

Then 30 seconds into it, Addy backed up into and over a cone.  The cop said:  "That would have been indicative of backing into a pole or a citizen on a sidewalk."   The instructor, the cop and Addy all agreed she should not be driving and would be a danger (after 1.4 grams)!

Later, they were given field tests.  While the cop claimed all 3 would be arrested, the only bad they showed was Jeff not being able to touch his nose.

Does that make this study inconclusive?  I would think so since it appears the cops knew how much pot was given to these 3 volunteers.

Let's face it.  More pot was smoked than these 3 would have ever smoked before driving.  More studies should be done.  More San Diego California news stations should be looking into this DUI issue like this.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

New Pill lowers one's blood alcohol level, reduces liver damage and helps avoid a DUI asks California attorneys?

So many things go through a California driver's head when he or she leaves the restaurant or bar, DUI lawyers know:

Should I take a mint?
Should I put my cell phone away?
Should I call a taxi?
Should I even drive or will I be arrested for DUI?

Or should I pop a pill?

Today's Nature Nanotechnology says a study was done in the United States on mice which suggests a new PILL which could lower one's alcohol level in his or her blood, California DUI attorneys are told.

Could it cause liver damage?  No.  The pill actually reduces liver damage.

Mice got drunk on alcoholic beverages during the study.  Then they were given enzymes encapsulated in a thin polymer shell.

The findings include that that the blood alcohol level of the mice was reduced by 101% after 45 minutes of feeding the antidote to the mice.  The BAC continued to drop by 318% after 90 minutes and by 368% after 3 hours.

The control group did not get the antidote and had much less declines in blood alcohol levels.

The pill is actually designed to prevent liver damage which may be caused by drinking too much beer or wine.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Why would the San Diego Police Department give a breath test to a SDPD Detective but not release the results of that breath test to the City Attorney's office prosecuting the DUI, California DUI lawyers ask?

Why would the San Diego Police Department give a breath test to a SDPD Detective but not release the results of that breath test to the City Attorney's office prosecuting the DUI, California DUI lawyers ask?

Are the San Diego police trying to protect "one of their own" or is it because of the pending Internal Affairs investigation which protects pending confidential police files, California DUI lawyers ask?

SDPD officer Jeff Blackford crashed into a utility box and was given a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) breath test right after the December crash.  Over 2 months later, the San Diego City Attorney's Office is asking a Superior Court Judge to release those results for use in his pending California DUI case.

Much after the crash, after a suspiciously unexplained "delay" in this DUI investigation involving many missing witnesses/statemetns, the San Diego Police Dept. obtained a .09% breath test result (which the San Diego City Attorney's Office is using at this point).  That is the Title 17 (California Code of Regulations) or Implied Consent Test.  The big breath test machine. The one that counts with the .08% legal standard.

The one that should not count so much, the PAS test which is not so reliable or trustworthy, is unknown.  It should not be used, say lawyers defending California drunk driving cases.  But cops trick people into blowing in that optional unreliable test all the time.  Then they try their hardest to get the San Diego City Attorney's Office to use that PAS test in court.

Many PAS gadgets have the ability to use memory or even print out results.  But that is usually not done.  Usually the California DUI cop gets the PAS results and writes them down, then incorporates them later into the drunk driving report, attorneys know.

The SDPD cop is presently charged with DUI plus a reckless enhancement allegation which carries 60 days mandatory jail.

In these cases, it's always good to have a professional DUI defense lawyer look at your San Diego California drunk driving case immediately.  Here's how.

Monday, February 11, 2013

San Diego Sheriff’s Department and California AVOID DUI Task Force mounted a massive Drunk Driving Fishing Expedition aka California DUI enforcement detail around Qualcomm Stadium, host of the Supercross Motorcycle Event, California DUI attorneys warn

San Diego Sheriff’s Department and California AVOID DUI Task Force mounted a massive Drunk Driving Fishing Expedition aka California DUI enforcement detail around Qualcomm Stadium, host of the Supercross Motorcycle Event, lawyers announce.

From 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. February 9th, 2013, California DUI Deputies and Police Officers from the San Diego Police Department, Coronado Police Department, CSU San Marcos Police Department, La Mesa Police Department, National City Police Department, and U.C. San Diego Police Department stopped 102 vehicles and persuaded 20 folks to do voluntary field sobriety tests, California DUI attorneys are told.


6 California DUI arrests,
1 felony arrest related to a recovered stolen vehicle,
1 arrest for the Possession for Sales of Marijuana,
Unlicensed or suspended licensed drivers citations.

The primary and secondary objections of the California drunk driving saturation patrol was to make money and the roadways of San Diego County safer by removing drivers who are "DUI."

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Florida DUI Police arrested a man who was driving his motorized shopping cart "drunk" inside Walmart, California DUI lawyers say

Florida DUI Police arrested a man who was driving his motorized shopping cart "drunk" inside Walmart, California DUI attorneys are told.

T. Carr was DUI as he drove through Walmart, finding alcohol in the store and drinking booze as he knocked over other shelf items, say California DUI lawyers.

A transient, he did not have enough money to pay the Brooksville Walmart for the alcohol.

He has two petty theft priors which could make the current arrest for disorderly intoxication, theft and possibly DUI, a Felony.

If you are wondering if you could be prosecuted for DUI, try this free San Diego County DUI Law Center evaluation.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Swedish DUI court agrees a man's high tolerance for alcohol (mulled wine aka glogg) could not be convicted because he believed that drink was "alcohol-free"

Not every country is like California when it comes to DUI cases, attorneys remind.

In Sweden, a DUI court said a man's high tolerance for alcohol (mulled wine aka glogg) could not be convicted because he believed that drink was "alcohol-free," California DUI lawyers share this story.

He had 6 small snapps bottles and a beer but said that was not unusual for him before starting his job as a sixty-one year old did not feel under the influence while driving to work.

When pulled over he was .10%, 5 times the legal limit of .02%, considered aggravated DUI.

The man blamed the glogg for putting him over the limit.  The court said since he drinks every day, he must have a high tolerance for alcohol, and dismissed the drunk driving charge.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

In this California DUI attorney's refusal hearing at DMV, the California DUI lawyer convinced the court to NOT find that a mechanical reading of the admonition by the police officer after a drunk driving arrest is sufficient as a matter of law to eliminate confusion where a citizen has asked why the Miranda rights do not apply to the chemical tests

In this California DUI attorney's refusal hearing at DMV, the California DUI lawyer
convinced the court to NOT find that a mechanical reading of the admonition by the police
officer after a drunk driving arrest is sufficient as a matter of law to eliminate confusion
where a citizen has asked why the Miranda rights do not apply to the chemical tests.

The driver was Mirandized, saw a sign for a phone call, asked to speak to a lawyer and
never was explained by the police why the Miranda rights do not apply to the Implied
Consent obligations.

Sure the officer read from the California DUI refusal admonition form:

"You do not have the right to talk to an attorney or have an attorney present before stating
whether you will submit to a test, before deciding which test to take, or during the test."

But the video showed the driver did not hear that statement as the driver was speaking
at the time.

California law:

“California courts have excused refusals to take a chemical test on the ground of
officer-induced confusion resulting from the juxtaposition of the [implied consent
warning and the Miranda warning] and the officer’s failure to clarify and explain the
difference.” (McGue v. Silas, supra, 82 Cal.App.3d at p. 806.) “It is recognized that
juxtaposition of the implied consent warnings (no right to refuse a test and no right to
consult with or to have an attorney present during its administration) with the Miranda
admonition (right to refuse interrogation and to have an attorney present at all stages of a
police interrogation, etc.), is apt to induce confusion. If a driver who has been given
Miranda insists on the presence of an attorney before choosing a test the courts have
recognized that he may have been confused by the two warnings and the officer’s failure
to clarify and explain the difference. In such a case the refusal to take a test has been held
not to be a refusal within the meaning of said section 13353. [Citation.] The question of
officer-induced confusion is one of fact. [Citations.] When a driver who has been given
Miranda manifests confusion by asserting his alleged right to an attorney, it is incumbent
upon the officer to explain that the right does not apply to these tests.” (McDonnell v.
Department of Motor Vehicles (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 653, 658.)

It is questionable whether officer-induced confusion would provide a defense here
if Hoberman-Kelly had refused to take a blood test. On one hand, if the person manifests
confusion, “ ‘it is incumbent upon the arresting officer to elaborate upon the warning.
The arrested person should be explicitly informed that the constitutional rights previously
explained to him are not applicable to the decision he must make concerning the three
chemical tests, and that he has no right to consult an attorney before making the decision
that he will, or will not, submit to one of them.’ ” (Goodman v. Orr (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d

845, 885.) On the other hand, “ ‘The rule only requires that the officer erase possible
confusion caused the allegedly drunken laymen by the officer’s own statements.’ ” (Ibid.)
Here there is no evidence that Perry made any statements to Hoberman-Kelly that were
incorrect or misleading. Nonetheless, it was unmistakably apparent that she was confused
by the Miranda warning she had received coupled with the sign on the wall advising that
she had a right to make a telephone call. While Perry did read the sentence in the form
admonition that she had no right to an attorney before deciding whether to take the test or
during the test, he did so in what the trial court aptly described as a “mechanical” reading,
and what might also be described as purely perfunctory. It is clear from the video that
Perry made no genuine effort to communicate to Hoberman-Kelly “that the constitutional
rights previously explained to [her] are not applicable to the decision [she] must make.”
Although Hoberman-Kelly repeatedly asked Perry why she could not make a phone call
as the sign indicated she could, Perry made no effort to answer her or to explain that she
was not entitled to make the call until after she took the blood test.

Despite the officer’s indifference to Hoberman-Kelly’s pleas for an explanation,
Hoberman-Kelly repeatedly told the officer she would take the blood test, both before
and after Perry stated he would take her responses as a refusal. When he made that
pronouncement she immediately responded again with the colorful but explicit statement
that she would give him the blood test. There unquestionably is substantial evidence that
Hoberman-Kelly never refused to submit to a blood test, and certainly never did so after
receiving the statutory admonition. Without causing any delay, she in fact cooperatively
submitted to the drawing of her blood as she said she would.

Like the trial court, we are mindful of the difficulties an officer confronts in
performing his duties while dealing with an apparently intoxicated individual who is
being loud and unruly. Nonetheless, the officer is obligated to attempt to clarify an
arrested person’s confusion over when the right to counsel arises and Perry made no
meaningful attempt to do so. We agree with the trial court that Perry both “failed to make
any reasonable effort” to dispel Hoberman-Kelly’s confusion and ignored her repeated
statements that she would submit to a blood test. The writ of mandate was properly


Hoberman-Kelly was arrested in the early morning hours on July 30, 2010.
California Highway Patrol Officer M. Perry and his partner responded to a call of a
vehicle traveling westbound in the eastbound lanes on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in
Marin County. The officers found the car stopped facing westbound in the eastbound
lanes, detected an odor of alcohol on Hoberman-Kelly’s breath, noticed her bloodshot
watery eyes, slurred speech and unsteady gait, and observed her poor performance on a
series of field sobriety tests. After Perry read the preliminary alcohol screen admonition
to Hoberman-Kelly, she refused to take a breath test at the scene and was arrested for
driving under the influence of alcohol. While in the patrol car she was read her Miranda
rights and advised of the consequences under Vehicle Code section 13353 of failing to
submit to a chemical test of her blood alcohol content. She was taken to the Marin Area
California Highway Patrol office, where a certified phlebotomist was waiting to
administer a blood test and where Perry read her the chemical test admonition verbatim
as it is printed on Department of Motor Vehicles form DS 367.

The exchange between Officer Perry and Hoberman-Kelly is difficult to describe
accurately but fortunately is captured in full on a video that is included in the
administrative record. Hoberman-Kelly, who was read her Miranda rights in the officer’s
vehicle, observed a sign on the wall next to which she was handcuffed advising her of the
right to make a telephone call and she stated that she wanted to call her attorney and to
make the telephone call to which the sign said she was entitled. Hoberman-Kelly was
belligerent and at one point managed to free herself from the handcuff, but she was
coherent and made plain that she did not understand why she could not make the phone
call to which the sign referred. Perry at no point acknowledged her request to make a call,
responded to her question why she could not do so as the sign indicated, or made any
effort to explain that despite her right to speak to an attorney she was not entitled to do so
or to make her call before submitting to the test. Instead the officer, ignoring Hoberman-
Kelly’s requests, continued disjointedly to read the printed admonition. The admonition
does include the statement that “You do not have the right to talk to an attorney or have
an attorney present before stating whether you will submit to a test, before deciding
which test to take, or during the test.” However, from the video it is apparent that
Hoberman-Kelly, who was voicing her demands while Perry was reading the statement,
did not hear the admonition and that Perry must have been aware that she did not hear it.
Hoberman-Kelly repeatedly stated that she wanted to read the admonition and at one
point attempted to grab the document, but the officer refused to permit her to see it.

While Perry was reading, Hoberman-Kelly, although repeating her demand to speak with
an attorney, stated several times that she had no problem with taking a blood test, but
Perry appears to be paying no attention to her. When Perry finished reading the
admonition, he asked Hoberman-Kelly whether she would submit to a blood test, to
which she responded “all right,” but Perry stated “that’s a no” and that he would take it as
a refusal. Hoberman-Kelly immediately shouted in response that she would “give you a
free fucking blood test” and repeated that she would do so several times. The
phlebotomist then promptly administered the blood test without incident.

After an administrative hearing, the department suspended Hoberman-Kelly’s
privilege to drive for one year for refusing the request to submit to the blood-alcohol test.
The hearing officer found that Hoberman-Kelly “refused to take a chemical test and kept
insisting she wanted her attorney present. Officer Perry advised her he considered it a
refusal and she then stated she would take a blood test. [Hoberman-Kelly’s] opportunity
to change her mind to retract her refusal to complete a chemical test had expired because
the officer already notified her he considered her responses and actions as a refusal.”
Hoberman-Kelly filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court seeking
to vacate the suspension order. Following a hearing at which the court reviewed the entire
administrative record, including the video, the court granted the writ and entered an
extensive order reading in part as follows: “The ‘fair meaning’ given to Ms. Hoberman-
Kelly’s statements is that she is genuinely exasperated and confused by the conflict
between her right to counsel as indicated on the wall of the police station and Officer
Perry’s implicit and explicit refusal to permit her to call for an attorney. Officer Perry

responds by reading the admonition mechanically and makes no effort to explain that the
Miranda right does not apply to the chemical tests. Officer Perry also refuse[d]
Ms. Hoberman-Kelly’s requests that she be permitted to read the admonition herself. The
court notes the contrast with McGue v. Silas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 799, 808, where ‘two
officers explained the implied consent admonition in their own words, and allowed
appellant to read it for himself.’ [¶] The video with Officer Perry also shows that
Ms. Hoberman-Kelly states repeatedly that she would submit to a blood test. Officer
Perry does not acknowledge or accept these offers and instead read the admonition to its
conclusion and then states that he will record her as a refusal. Although delivered in an
agitated voice, Ms. Hoberman-Kelly does state ‘I have no problem with a blood test’
while Officer Perry reads the admonition and ‘I will give you a free fucking blood test’
seconds after he says that he deems [the] request for an attorney as a refusal. [¶] The
video takes 2:59 minutes, and there is no indication in the record that Ms. Hoberman-
Kelly’s insistence on an attorney delayed the drawing of her blood. The video of the
blood draw shows that Ms. Hoberman-Kelly submitted to a blood draw. [¶] The court
condemns Ms. Hoberman-Kelly’s belligerence and is sympathetic to the challenges of

law enforcement in dealing with agitated members of the public. The court nevertheless
finds that Ms. Hoberman-Kelly was confused by [the] discrepancy between the
information on the wall and the information provided to her by Officer Perry, and that
Officer Perry failed to make any reasonable effort [to] clarify and explain the difference.

The court will not find that a mechanical reading of the admonition is sufficient as a
matter of law to eliminate confusion where a citizen has asked why the Miranda rights do
not apply to the chemical tests.”

The department has timely appealed from the superior court’s order.

Filed 2/5/13
Plaintiff and Respondent,
GEORGE VALVERDE, as Director, etc.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. RG11581988)
George Valverde, the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (the
department), appeals from the issuance of a writ of mandate setting aside the suspension
of the driver’s license of Zoe Hei Rim Hoberman-Kelly for allegedly refusing to submit
to a blood test to determine her blood-alcohol content. The interaction between
Hoberman-Kelly and the officer who advised her of the obligation to submit to the test is
recorded on a video that is part of the administrative record. After reviewing the video we
have no doubt that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the officer’s
reading of the necessary admonitions to Hoberman-Kelly was mechanical, with no
attempt having been made to dispel her confusion as to the right to contact counsel, and
that, in all events, Hoberman-Kelly “state[d] repeatedly that she would submit to a blood
test.” We shall affirm the trial court’s order.

This appeal turns on whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s factual finding that
Hoberman-Kelly did not refuse to submit to a blood test. Were we to answer this question
in the negative—which we do not—the outcome would then depend on whether there
was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s implicit finding that any refusal
resulted from Hoberman-Kelly’s confusion induced by Perry as to her right to counsel
before submitting to the test. (See McGue v. Silas (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 799, 807.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller of San Diego, California has been honored with a recognition by SDMetro in its selection of "San Diego's Top DUI Attorneys"

San DiegoCalifornia (PR NewsWire) February 32013

Announcing a special recognition appearing in the February issue of SDMetro published by REP Publishing, Inc, California DUI lawyer Rick Mueller was selected for the honor of "San Diego's Top DUI Attorneys".

California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller comments on the recognition: "This is a real privilege.  The fact that SDMetro annually includes me in its selection of "San Diego's Top DUI Attorneys" is  a recognition I do not take lightly.  I shall continue to deliver excellent California DUI Attorney representation."

Following the publication of California DUI attorney George (Rick) Mueller's selection for SDMetro's San Diego's Top DUI Attorneys list, American Registry seconded the honor and added Rick Mueller to the "Registry of Business Excellence™". An exclusive recognition plaque, shown here, has been designed to commemorate this honor.

For more information on California drunk driving attorney Rick Mueller, located in San DiegoCalifornia please call 858-587-6055, or visit here.

This press release was written by American Registry, LLC with contributions from California drunk driving lawyer Mueller and was distributed by PR NewsWire, a subsidiary of UBM plc.

American Registry, LLC is an independent company that serves businesses and professionals such asGeorge Mueller who have been recognized for excellence. American Registry offers news releases, plaques and The Registry™, an online listing of over 2 million significant business and professional recognitions. Search The Registry™.

Contact Info: 
Rick Mueller
Phone: 858-587-6055
Email Address:
California DUI lawyer Rick Mueller Selected For "San Diego's Top Attorneys". 
Source: American Registry on behalf of California DUI attorney Rick Mueller

"The Cop is lying!" How many times have California DUI criminal defense lawyers heard that? Any California driver who comes into contact with the police faces the prospect of facts being reported in such a way designed to CONVICT the driver, regardless of the charge, say California DUI attorneys

"The Cop is lying!"  How many times have California DUI criminal defense lawyers heard that?  Any California driver who comes into contact with the police faces the prospect of facts being reported in such a way designed to CONVICT the driver, regardless of the charge, say California DUI attorneys.

This weekend's New York Times features an article "Why Police Officers Lie Under Oath."

Drunk driving and drugs cases are easy pickings for a cop who wants to fabricate facts, California DUI lawyers maintain.  It's more difficult to uncover such police lies as triers of fact are sometimes forced to choose between believing someone who may be DUI (or was reportedly drinking or using drugs) vs. a California Peace Officer, say attorneys.

Trying to prove a cop was lying is extremely challenging.  First, it's uncommon for a police officer to openly concede his or her own "lying" or to suggest other officers are not telling the truth.

Second, "the Code of Silence" is a strong tradition among policemen.

Third, even cops are human beings.  Humans lie.  Every day.  Many times.  Even when they don't have to.  Even if it's about something little.

Fourth, protection of reputation or standing in the police may be motivation to lie.

Fifth, lying allows police quota systems and financial incentives like overtime pay flourish.  Stopping, frisking and arresting potential criminals is big business.

The problem is one big police lie may destroy the life of a person accused.  The person could lose his or her job, could go to jail, and be subject to the stigma of being a "criminal."

Frightening is the fact that many judges and hearing officer tolerate police lying.  The criminal justice system - from New York to California - is arguably corrupt.  The public wants to hear police say they are getting tougher on crimes and more people (not less) are being arrest.

Should alleged criminals be considered more trustworthy than police?  Maybe.  Certainly if the police are inclined to fabricate.  The ability to both ascertain a police lie AND expose the police lie requires collection of all facts and courage.

"Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, 
instead of theories to suit facts.”—Sherlock Holmes

Friday, February 1, 2013

San Diego announced today it will no longer use red-light cameras to issue citations - citing ineffectiveness in reducing accidents, costs to enforce, an 82% unpopularity vote, and a preference for police officers to write the ticket when they talk to the citizen, lots of San Diego drivers will be saving that $490, say California DUI lawyers

San Diego announced today it will no longer use red-light cameras to issue citations, California DUI attorneys report.  Citing ineffectiveness in reducing accidents, costs to enforce, an 82% unpopularity vote, and a preference for police officers to write the ticket when they talk to the citizen, lots of San Diego drivers will be saving that $490, say California DUI lawyers.

The days of automated red traffic signal tickets in San Diego have come to an end, announced the Mayor at a press conference today.  He talked to traffic engineers and San Diego residents before making the decision to end something that has gone unchecked for nearly twelve years.

Contracts were issued 15 years ago.  Twenty-one cameras issued 20,000 citations two years ago, resulting in nearly Two Million Dollars in revenues for San Diego.  The city netted 10% or $200,000 after paying cops, the camera vendor and operational costs.

Other San Diego California cities still run the red-light camera racket:  Vista, Solana Beach, Oceanside, Escondido, Encinitas, El Cajon and Del Mar.

Other California cities have stopped this nonsense:  San Juan Capistrano, Pasadena, Murrieta, Los Angeles, Glendale, Corona, Bell Gardens and Grand Terrace.

No one knows what will happen with 1,000's of pending red-light camera citations going through the San Diego County Superior Court.  Other cities which stopped their programs often processed tickets business-as-usual.