The other day an individual challenged his DUI in court without the representation of an attorney. In open court, in front of the other defendants and attorneys, he started to yell at the presiding judge. "They violated my constitutional rights!" The judge was annoyed but let the man finish. "A DUI checkpoint is unconstitutional! There was no probable cause to stop me!" After he was done, the judge responded: "This is an arraignment. All you need to do is enter a plea of guilty, no contest, or not guilty."
Besides the procedural mistake (one does not argue the merits of a case at an arraignment), the pro per defendant was wrong on the law. DUI checkpoints are not unconstitutional. To the contrary, both the United States and California Constitutions' allow DUI checkpoints.
The rationale behind "mobile" or "roadblock" DUI checkpoints lies in public safety. Due to the state's strong interest in preventing injury from DUI accidents, minor inconveniences are allowed. This does not mean that law enforcement can use checkpoints as an excuse to perform general or broad investigations. Police officers must follow strict guidelines when conducting a DUI checkpoint.
California has enacted legislation with respect to checkpoints. California Vehicle Code section 2814.2, subsection (a) states: "[a] driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety
checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs
and displays are posted requiring that stop."
Nevertheless, a California Supreme Court case in 1987 (Ingersoll v. Palmer), enumerated the guidelines that must be followed by officers executing a DUI checkpoint. They are as follows:
a) Supervising officers must make all operational decisions;
b) Criteria for stops must be neutral;
c) Checkpoint must be reasonably located;
d) Adequate safety measures must be taken;
e) Good judgment must be used when determining the checkpoint's time and duration;
f) There must be sufficient notice to drivers that the checkpoint is for official purposes;
g) Drivers must only be stopped for a minimal amount of time; and
h) Checkpoints should be publicly advertised in advance of execution.
If these guidelines are not followed, it is possible that a DUI charge, arising from a checkpoint, could be challenged. There are never guarantees, however.
A checkpoint also does not mean officers' can perform an extensive investigation without probable cause. A brief stop can lead to an investigation when there is evidence, sufficient probable cause, of intoxication --for example, when a person has alcohol on his breath, blurred eyes, or slurred speech.
In summary, on holiday weekends, like Labor Day Weekend, make sure that you avoid situations where you will have to drink and drive. Use a designated driver or taxi service if you drink. It is not only against the law, it is extremely dangerous. With that, have a good weekend!
Showing posts with label DUI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DUI. Show all posts
Friday, September 4, 2015
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Law Enforcement Cannot Search Cell Phones Without Warrants
It is common knowledge that the law moves slow, much slower than technology. When it comes to technological advances, the law can barely keep up. One should be able to see why. Drafters of legislation, usually not keen on computer science and engineering, have a difficult time anticipating how new devices could impact the law.
For example, cell phones in the 1980's were bricks. Users could expect dropped calls and much attention. The ability to make calls without a landline was groundbreaking. But, cell phones did not serve any other function besides making calls. Many could not predict that cell phones would become min-computers. Smartphones are radically different from first generation cell phones; lawyers, judges, and legislators may have been the last to realize it.
Smartphones have impacted the law, and the Fourth Amendment. Messages, applications, and search history can assist law enforcement. Drug deals can be carried out by text message. Illegal transfer of stolen money can be done by mobile banking. Indeed, a murderer could develop ways to kill someone by searching on his or her cell phone. The vast majority of cell phone use is not criminal in nature. As such, it is important that privacy is protected.
In June of 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that searching a cell phone incident to arrest requires a search warrant. Riley v. California was a strong rebuke of the government's position that law enforcement should be able to access digital data before it could be potentially destroyed.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, in part, that: "[t]he fact that technology now allows an individual to carry [the privacies of life] in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant."
In practice, law enforcement has been slow to apply Riley. One would be surprised how often police officers still search cell phones after a DUI, domestic violence, or misdemeanor arrest without a warrant. In these cases, there can be redress if inculpatory evidence is obtained.
Should law enforcement search a cell phone after an arrest without a warrant, a defense attorney may be able to prevail in suppressing the evidence. A 1538 motion to suppress should definitely be considered as an option by a defense attorney if there are possible Riley violations.
Smartphones are more than just phones, they are at the center of many people's lives. Although the Fourth Amendment didn't touch upon the legality of searching cell phones (the founding fathers were smart but not fortune tellers), we now know that it is the law of the land that cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant.
For example, cell phones in the 1980's were bricks. Users could expect dropped calls and much attention. The ability to make calls without a landline was groundbreaking. But, cell phones did not serve any other function besides making calls. Many could not predict that cell phones would become min-computers. Smartphones are radically different from first generation cell phones; lawyers, judges, and legislators may have been the last to realize it.
Smartphones have impacted the law, and the Fourth Amendment. Messages, applications, and search history can assist law enforcement. Drug deals can be carried out by text message. Illegal transfer of stolen money can be done by mobile banking. Indeed, a murderer could develop ways to kill someone by searching on his or her cell phone. The vast majority of cell phone use is not criminal in nature. As such, it is important that privacy is protected.
In June of 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that searching a cell phone incident to arrest requires a search warrant. Riley v. California was a strong rebuke of the government's position that law enforcement should be able to access digital data before it could be potentially destroyed.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, in part, that: "[t]he fact that technology now allows an individual to carry [the privacies of life] in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant."
In practice, law enforcement has been slow to apply Riley. One would be surprised how often police officers still search cell phones after a DUI, domestic violence, or misdemeanor arrest without a warrant. In these cases, there can be redress if inculpatory evidence is obtained.
Should law enforcement search a cell phone after an arrest without a warrant, a defense attorney may be able to prevail in suppressing the evidence. A 1538 motion to suppress should definitely be considered as an option by a defense attorney if there are possible Riley violations.
Smartphones are more than just phones, they are at the center of many people's lives. Although the Fourth Amendment didn't touch upon the legality of searching cell phones (the founding fathers were smart but not fortune tellers), we now know that it is the law of the land that cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Suing a DUI Driver for Personal Injury
Although I represent DUI defendants, and have been successful in dismissing a DUI criminal charge, there are times when a DUI can result in an accident where there is a victim. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, hundreds of individuals die each year from an accident involving a drunk driver. When an individual is injured in a motor vehicle accident because of the negligence of a drunk driver, he or she can pursue a civil claim.
Typically there will be a criminal proceeding against the alleged drunk driver. A restitution hearing may even take place. But, injured parties can also initiate their own civil claims. There is no requirement to wait for the criminal case to be completed, or even filed. However, a criminal conviction could positively impact the civil case, as the burden in a civil proceeding is much lower -- proof by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is important to consult with a personal injury attorney after one has been injured as the result of a DUI driver. An attorney can investigate immediately, and determine whether there are other defendants besides the driver. Negligence may be apportioned to different individuals, or entities. Sometimes the accident could have been prevented had someone exercised good judgment and prevented the intoxicated person from driving.
A negligence cause of action could also be pursued against a bar, nightclub, or restaurant. Legislators have passed laws obligating operators of drinking establishments to use reasonable judgment when serving alcohol to its patrons. When a bartender keeps serving drinks to an intoxicated person when the bartender knew or should have known that the person was intoxicated, the bar could be held liable for the actions of that intoxicated person if he or she causes an accident later.
Similarly, hosts of parties can also be held liable for the negligence of a drunk guest. A party host cannot keep serving drinks to a guest who appears inebriated. Steps need to be taken by hosts to ensure that their guests do not harm others, especially when there are so many different opportunities to prevent a drunk driving incident.
Of course the driver may be sued, and his or her own insurance will need to be notified. The important thing is that in a DUI incident resulting in injuries, there are ways to be made whole again. Vehicle repair costs, medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages are all damages that can be claimed. If you or someone you know has been a victim of a drunk driving incident, call an experienced attorney.
Typically there will be a criminal proceeding against the alleged drunk driver. A restitution hearing may even take place. But, injured parties can also initiate their own civil claims. There is no requirement to wait for the criminal case to be completed, or even filed. However, a criminal conviction could positively impact the civil case, as the burden in a civil proceeding is much lower -- proof by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is important to consult with a personal injury attorney after one has been injured as the result of a DUI driver. An attorney can investigate immediately, and determine whether there are other defendants besides the driver. Negligence may be apportioned to different individuals, or entities. Sometimes the accident could have been prevented had someone exercised good judgment and prevented the intoxicated person from driving.
A negligence cause of action could also be pursued against a bar, nightclub, or restaurant. Legislators have passed laws obligating operators of drinking establishments to use reasonable judgment when serving alcohol to its patrons. When a bartender keeps serving drinks to an intoxicated person when the bartender knew or should have known that the person was intoxicated, the bar could be held liable for the actions of that intoxicated person if he or she causes an accident later.
Similarly, hosts of parties can also be held liable for the negligence of a drunk guest. A party host cannot keep serving drinks to a guest who appears inebriated. Steps need to be taken by hosts to ensure that their guests do not harm others, especially when there are so many different opportunities to prevent a drunk driving incident.
Of course the driver may be sued, and his or her own insurance will need to be notified. The important thing is that in a DUI incident resulting in injuries, there are ways to be made whole again. Vehicle repair costs, medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages are all damages that can be claimed. If you or someone you know has been a victim of a drunk driving incident, call an experienced attorney.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Utilizing a Penal Code section 1538, Motion to Suppress, in a DUI Case
Not all criminal cases go to trial. In fact, more often than not, a criminal case will be disposed of prior to a trial. Plea deals are common because they can be beneficial for both the defendant and the People.
But, there are also circumstances when a case can be dismissed prior to a trial. One common motion that can be brought during the pre-trial stages of a case is a Motion to Suppress. Penal Code section 1538 provides the right of an accused to challenge evidence that may have been obtained illegally. Typically if the evidence is suppressed -- like the blood results of a DUI stop -- the case must be dismissed because the evidence is dispositive to the case.
One example of when a Motion to Suppress could be successful is when an officer stops an accused for a traffic stop that was unlawful. An officer cannot stop an individual without sufficient probable cause, a legal standard provided by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, if an officer reports that he stopped an accused for violating the Vehicle Code, but there was no Vehicle Code violation, the accused may be able to prevail at a P.C. 1538 hearing.
A criminal defense attorney has the responsibility to perform an adequate investigation. Evidence obtained by an attorney could lead to a decision to file a Motion to Suppress. An investigation can include, but is not limited to: requesting discovery from the prosecution, subpoenaing documents, and looking at possible video surveillance. It is now common for officers to have dashboard cameras, and also cameras on their persons. A video could show that a traffic stop was unlawful.
Some of my clients have asked what a motion consists of. A motion is a request for the court to do something. The party "moves" the court to make an order. A motion is started (usually) by an opening brief. The attorney files a memorandum with points and authorities (cases in support of the motion). Then, the prosecution (again, usually) files an opposition brief, highlighting their position against the motion. This allows the court to familiarize itself with the law and facts of the particular case. After the briefing with physical documents, there is an evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify. The arresting officer most likely will testify as to the facts of the stop or arrest.
A Motion to Suppress is a constitutional protection. It safeguards citizens from police abuses. There are other type of situations, as well, when a P.C. section 1538 may be appropriate. Law enforcement cannot exercise a warrant based on false information. Police cannot execute a warrant outside the constraints of the warrant. Facts should be scrutinized in every criminal case.
In conclusion, a defendant may not need to persuade a jury. There are pre-trial motions that can be potentially made, which could lead to a complete dismissal. It is important to contact an attorney should you be charged with a crime. We welcome your calls and questions.
But, there are also circumstances when a case can be dismissed prior to a trial. One common motion that can be brought during the pre-trial stages of a case is a Motion to Suppress. Penal Code section 1538 provides the right of an accused to challenge evidence that may have been obtained illegally. Typically if the evidence is suppressed -- like the blood results of a DUI stop -- the case must be dismissed because the evidence is dispositive to the case.
One example of when a Motion to Suppress could be successful is when an officer stops an accused for a traffic stop that was unlawful. An officer cannot stop an individual without sufficient probable cause, a legal standard provided by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, if an officer reports that he stopped an accused for violating the Vehicle Code, but there was no Vehicle Code violation, the accused may be able to prevail at a P.C. 1538 hearing.
A criminal defense attorney has the responsibility to perform an adequate investigation. Evidence obtained by an attorney could lead to a decision to file a Motion to Suppress. An investigation can include, but is not limited to: requesting discovery from the prosecution, subpoenaing documents, and looking at possible video surveillance. It is now common for officers to have dashboard cameras, and also cameras on their persons. A video could show that a traffic stop was unlawful.
Some of my clients have asked what a motion consists of. A motion is a request for the court to do something. The party "moves" the court to make an order. A motion is started (usually) by an opening brief. The attorney files a memorandum with points and authorities (cases in support of the motion). Then, the prosecution (again, usually) files an opposition brief, highlighting their position against the motion. This allows the court to familiarize itself with the law and facts of the particular case. After the briefing with physical documents, there is an evidentiary hearing where witnesses testify. The arresting officer most likely will testify as to the facts of the stop or arrest.
A Motion to Suppress is a constitutional protection. It safeguards citizens from police abuses. There are other type of situations, as well, when a P.C. section 1538 may be appropriate. Law enforcement cannot exercise a warrant based on false information. Police cannot execute a warrant outside the constraints of the warrant. Facts should be scrutinized in every criminal case.
In conclusion, a defendant may not need to persuade a jury. There are pre-trial motions that can be potentially made, which could lead to a complete dismissal. It is important to contact an attorney should you be charged with a crime. We welcome your calls and questions.
Monday, July 14, 2014
I Was Arrested for a DUI; Now What?
A California DUI carries some harsh penalties. Due to the nature of this offense -- it is a clear public safety concern, our state has elected to take a tough stance. But just like any other criminal charge, there are steps that an accused can take that will help him or her in the future.
THE DUI ARREST
When there is sufficient probable cause, law enforcement may investigate and arrest an individual for a DUI. While defense attorneys can later challenge probable cause, it is wise to be respectful when stopped for suspicion of a DUI.
You should be polite and cooperative with law enforcement. It does not mean that you should waive your rights, but it will not help to be combative during the stop. Cursing, yelling, and being rude will not make the officer go away. In fact, it will be mentioned in the police report.
However, you should not volunteer information. Exercise your right to remain silent. Miranda is the landmark case, which protects statements from being admitted into evidence if there has not been an affirmative warning, but Miranda warnings only have to be given after a formal arrest. Thus, law enforcement will always utilize your statements to assess guilt before a warning. Slurred words, admissions of guilt, and memory lapses can lead to problems down the road.
AFTER THE ARREST
If you have been arrested, you should exercise your right to an attorney. There is a reason that there is law school and a bar examination. Further, there is a reason why attorneys charged with a crime will almost always retain another attorney. It is difficult for someone, under an emotional state, to represent themselves.
More than that, retaining an attorney will mean that a professional can immediately begin to protect your rights. Experience and knowledge can go a long way in fighting a DUI charge.
Schedule your DMV suspension hearing, or have your attorney do it immediately. There are two aspects to a DUI, as discussed on my website. There is the actual criminal charge handled by the superior court, and the DMV aspect of the case. They are distinct and separate, although the court can impact what the DMV will do.
Within 10 days of the arrest, a hearing needs to be scheduled. A DMV suspension hearing is a great opportunity to explore probable cause, the officer's testimony, and other evidence that will be used against you. Do not sleep on your privileges with respect to licensing issues.
AFTER YOUR "OR" RELEASE
Finally, after you have been arrested and released under your own recognizance, exercise your right to information. The web has become a treasure trove of free legal content, including my blog and website. You should become familiar with the criminal, and DMV, process. Further, you should research potential DUI attorneys. An accused should be aware of the charge against him or her, and the consequences of that charge.
Our office invites your questions. We have experience in DUI, and other criminal cases. Remember that time is of the essence, so do not procrastinate if you or a loved one has been charged with a DUI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)