San Francisco Bay Area DUI Blog

DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS IN 2016

Posted by Paul Burglin on Sun, Jan 03, 2016

     Another new year is upon us and I sincerely hope you did not start it off with a DUI arrest. Spending four or more hours in a drunk tank is one of the most demoralizing experiences one can have, but now that you’re out let’s try to minimize the consequences.

     Depending on whether you submitted to a chemical test of your breath or blood, or refused to do so without a warrant, you are most likely looking at a license suspension ranging from 4 months to one year.

     If you have one or more prior DUI convictions or alcohol-related license suspensions the period may be as long as three years.

     So the first thing I will do for you is get a hearing request submitted to the DMV---there is a 10-day deadline from the date of arrest for getting this done, so let’s not procrastinate.

Call or e-mail me now and I will get this off your platter!

                        (415)-729-7300 or burglin@msn.com

     In most instances, I can also go to Court for you and you need not personally appear even if you posted bail. The only reason you would have to personally appear with me is if you injured or killed someone and the prosecutor is filing felony charges against you.

SERIOUS CHARGES REQUIRE A SERIOUS LAWYER

      Do yourself a favor and don’t rely upon mail solicitations, misleading rating services, or phony accolades (e.g., “Top 100 Lawyer”). Get a lawyer with experience that specializes in DUI defense. Hire an attorney who is “Board-Certified in DUI Defense” as recognized by the American Bar Association.

      There are potential defenses in almost every DUI case, and there is always room to minimize the consequences even if there is no viable defense. Even if the police had a legitimate reason for detaining and arresting you, it may be possible to suppress from evidence the chemical test results or demonstrate a flaw in the administration of the test or the equipment.

     There are also ways to minimize or avoid the amount of actual license suspension time, even for multiple offenders. I have been handling these cases for 30 years and you will be hard pressed to find anyone with my level of experience in this field. Check out my website at www.burglin.com for further information about me and/or contact me at:

(415)-729-7300 or burglin@msn.com

Have you been charged with a DUI San FranciscoDUI MarinDUI Sonoma or DUI NapaPaul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"

Tags: San Francisco DUI lawyer, Drunk Driving Defense Cases, IID Restricted Licenses, DUI Sonoma, DUI Napa, San Francisco DUI attorney, California DUI laws, Ignition Interlock Device, DUI Laws, Sonoma DUI attorney, First Time DUI, DUI Marin, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin, Drunk Driving Defense Cases California DUI laws

How To Deal With A First-Time DUI Arrest

Posted by Paul Burglin on Fri, Nov 06, 2015

 

Originally published in the November 2015 issue of Marin Magazine, veteran San Francisco and San Rafael DUI attorney Paul Burglin was asked:

  • What really happens after you see the bluelights in the rearview mirror?

  • What can you do to minimize the damage a DUI charge wreaks on your life?

Mr. Burglin, who literally wrote the book on DUI Defense - California Drunk Driving Law - walked them through with how to deal with a first-offense DUI charge, step-by-step.

Read this first before you think of driving after drinking...

You can read the full article here: http://bit.ly/1RtEf4L

Marin DUI Attorney


Have you been charged with a DUI San FranciscoDUI MarinDUI Sonoma or DUI NapaPaul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: San Francisco DUI lawyer, Reduced DUI, DUI Sonoma, DUI Napa, San Francisco DUI attorney, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, DUI Laws, First Time DUI, DUI Marin, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin

ON-LINE REVIEWS AND WEBSITE CLAIMS

Posted by Paul Burglin on Tue, Feb 24, 2015

 

      Allow me to share with you some insight about on-line reviews and website claims in the field of DUI and DMV defense.

      Inexperienced attorneys are more tech savvy than veteran lawyers---the latter got their degrees and began practicing law before computers and I-Pads were in existence.  Young attorneys learned how to use these things in grade school, and then got training in College on how to utilize these tools for marketing purposes.  Because the business of a new lawyer is slow owing to lack of experience, reputation and referrals, they also have the time it takes to get family and friends to write favorable reviews and load their websites with the words and links that boost their organic ranking on search engines.

      Let’s start with AVVO.  When you see an attorney with 40, 80, or 100-plus client reviews on AVVO, understand that the attorney has undoubtedly solicited reviews.  I have represented more than 4000 clients in my career, but I do not solicit reviews because I believe it is unseemly to ask clients to talk about confidential matters unless they want to.

      YELP can be a source of good information about a customer experience, but it can also be the product of an unscrupulous competitor trying to damage someone’s reputation. 

       Read reviews carefully:  Examine similar writing styles and look for clusters in terms of the dates reviews were posted (two or more on the same date, or even in the same week, are suspicious).  If you see a negative review on YELP, look at other reviews the same individual has written.

      Finally, a word about websites.  It is appalling how many misrepresentations and misleading statements are found on DUI attorney websites.  The California State Bar recently issued an opinion concerning Professional Responsibility And Conduct relating to websites and internet advertising (Formal Opinion Interim No. 12-0006).  I have seen attorneys with less than five years of experience claiming to have 20-plus years of experience. Some law firms claim 40 years of combined experience but fail to tell you that one lawyer has 36 years and the four associates have only a year of experience handling the cases. You can verify experience discipline records at http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch.

      A lot of attorneys have a rolling list of victories in Superior Court and at the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on their website, but without any way for one to verify the claim and no disclaimer as required by the State Bar rules.  When you talk to an attorney, look for candor and straight talk. 

San Francisco DUI LawyerHave you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"

Tags: San Francisco DUI lawyer, Drunk Driving Defense Cases, DUI Court Decisions, IID Restriced License, San Francisco DUI attorney, California DUI laws, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, Ignition Interlock Device, DUI Laws, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin

World Series And DUI Detentions In San Francisco Bay Area

Posted by Paul Burglin on Sun, Oct 26, 2014

 

Those leaving AT&T Park this evening may find themselves getting stopped by the California Highway Patrol or the San Francisco Police Department for any number of reasons. The safest way to avoid it is to not drink and drive, but drinking and driving remains legal in California and it alone is not a basis to stop a motorist unless the he or she is observed drinking and driving at the same time!

       If you get stopped and are ultimately arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, you may be able to get the evidence suppressed and the charges dropped if the police lacked sufficient probable cause to initially detain you.

      911 reports – Sometimes police officers are notified by their dispatcher that somebody reported your vehicle as being driven by a drunk driver. That alone is not always enough to justify an enforcement stop, unless the police independently observe something wrong with your driving or the reporting party gives sufficient details about you, your vehicle, and the manner of driving.

      DUI Checkpoints – The United States Supreme Court and California Supreme Court have both approved warrantless DUI Checkpoint stops, but subject to certain limitations. In their zest to apprehend drunk drivers and keep federal grant money coming in, law enforcement agencies often push the envelope on how these DUI checkpoint stops are operated.

      Mobile Video Audio Recording System (MVARS) – Many police agencies, including the California Highway Patrol, now have video and audio evidence. The good news for you is that the evidence does not always support their version of events in terns of your manner of driving and your performance on field sobriety tests.

      Before pleading guilty to a DUI charge under California Vehicle Code section 23152, make sure you consult with a lawyer Board-Certified in DUI Defense

 Paul Burglin is a San Francisco DUI Attorney who is Board Certified in DUI Defense. For over 28 years he has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"

paulimage102614

Tags: Drunk Driving Defense Cases, IID Restricted License, California DUI laws, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin, San Francisco DUI Attorneys

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Mon, Jul 21, 2014

Loss of Pilot and Medical Certificates By FAA For Failure To Disclose Prior DUI Arrest

Taylor v. Huerta, ___ F.3d ___, (D.C. Cir. 2013) – Docket No. 12-1140

WL 3762896

Taylor submitted an application for a medical certificate using the FAA's online system, MedXPress. One of the questions asked him about any prior arrests and he answered “no” despite a previous DUI arrest in California (which, ironically, did not even result in a conviction).  The FAA discovered the prior arrest on a background check and opened an investigation as to why it was not disclosed. He said he did not read the question carefully, was unaware that prior arrests were now being asked instead of just prior convictions, and that he had just hit a button that put a “no” answer to a number of questions all at once.  The answers were submitted under penalty of perjury.

The Court rejected the contention that the omission was inadvertent, holding that “[a] defense of deliberate inattention fails where the applicant is attesting to events about which he has actual knowledge.” [cite].  It then slapped him with this rebuke:

“Despite Taylor's melodramatic description of the button's significance, the reality is that it does not limit in any way the ability of applicants to read the questions carefully. The button does not obscure or hide the questions. To the contrary, the questions appear on the same screen as the button, and they can be read by anyone who can see the button. [cite]. The FAA's decision to provide this modest convenience, rather than requiring MedXPress users to click “yes” or “no” for each question individually, does not “entrap” applicants. Nor does MedXPress “downgrade” the questions' importance. It expressly requires the applicant to certify that “all ... answers provided ... on this application form are complete and true to the best of [his or her] knowledge.” [cite] And it prominently highlights the possibility that false answers may expose the applicant to substantial criminal liability. [cite].”

EDITOR’S NOTE:  This case demonstrates once again that the failure to truthfully answer questions on a professional license application is treated more harshly by licensing boards than disclosure of the underlying offense.

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"

Board Certified DUI Attorney

Tags: Drunk Driving Defense Cases, DUI Court Decisions, IID Restriced License, San Francisco DUI attorney, California DUI laws, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Fri, Jul 11, 2014

People v. Vangelder (2013)

___ Cal.4th ___ (Calif. Supreme Court – Docket No. S195423)

Expert testimony that properly working and approved breath-alcohol instruments do not sample breath samples as they are designed to, and thus do not produce reliable results, is irrelevant and inadmissible on the per se charge. The exclusion extends to physiological variability such as body and breath temperature, hematocrit level, gender, and breathing patterns.

The Court characterized expert witness Michael Hlastala’s proffered testimony as a “regulation-based argument” that improperly seeks to trump legislative determinations concerning alcohol limits in deep lung breath. It specifically declined to address whether the limitation applies to the impairment count (it would appear not to).

EDITOR’S NOTE:  The holding does not seem to bar challenges based on mouth alcohol or GERD since these are contamination arguments that have nothing to do with partition ratio variability.

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"

San Francisco DUI Lawyer


Tags: Drunk Driving Defense Cases, DUI Court Decisions, IID Restricted License, California DUI laws, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, Ignition Interlock Device, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin, San Francisco DUI Attorneys

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Tue, Jul 01, 2014

Partition Ratio Evidence Admissible To Defend Impairment Charge Even If Prosecution Only Introduces Breath-Alcohol Test Results To Prove The Per Se Offense

State v. Cooperman (2013)

Arizona Supreme Court – Docket No. CV–12–0319–PR

The Arizona Supreme Court holds that partition ratio variability evidence (either in the general population in the individual specifically) is relevant and admissible in prosecutions for driving while impaired even if the state elects to introduce breath test results only to prove the .08 or higher per se count. The decision cited and followed Supreme Court decisions from California and Vermont on this issue.

 In affirming, the Arizona Supreme Court did not address an important aspect of the Court of Appeal’s decision below in State v. Cooperman (Ariz.Ct.App. 2012) 282 P.3d 446. The lower Court additionally held that physiological variability (e.g., breathing patterns, body and breath temperatures, hematocrit levels, gender, etc.) in the general population may be admitted to cast doubt on the reliability of breath-alcohol samples in defense against both the impairment and per se charges. The California Supreme Court noted this holding in Vangelder (see below) but declined to follow it on the per se count.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  NCDD member Steven Barnard contributed an amicus brief on this winning case.

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay areaattorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"
San Francisco DUI Attorney

Tags: Drunk Driving Defense Cases, Reduced DUI, DUI Court Decisions, IID Restricted License, San Francisco DUI attorney, California DUI laws, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, Ignition Interlock Device, DUI Laws, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Thu, Jun 19, 2014

Blood Draws At Jail Facility By Non-Physician/Non-Nurse Found Reasonable

People v. Cuevas

___Cal.App.4th ___ (2013) (California First District Court of Appeal, Div. 1 – Docket No. A138062)

2013 WL 3963601

The Court reviewed seven consolidated cases involving DUI arrests where the subjects opted for blood testing under California’s implied consent law and six were done at a jail facility. The blood draws were each performed by a trained phlebotomist or blood technician. Police officers testified to observing the blood draw site being cleaned and a needle being used from a sealed package. No evidence of pain or discomfort was presented, and in five of the cases there was testimony that the area was bandaged following the blood draw.

The Court rejected defense contentions that the blood draws failed to meet the constitutional standard of reasonableness because police officers arguably lacked the medical training necessary to testify whether the blood draws were performed in a medically approved manner and were done in a jail facility rather than a hospital.

The Court did note, however, that mere consent to a blood draw does not make the manner of drawing blood reasonable per se. It is but one factor to be considered in conjunction with the totality of circumstances.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The California Supreme Court denied petitions for review and for de-publication.

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay areaattorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"
San Francisco DUI Attorney

Tags: San Francisco DUI lawyer, Drunk Driving Defense Cases, Reduced DUI, DUI Court Decisions, IID Restriced License, California DUI laws, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Tue, Jun 10, 2014

Symptoms of Intoxication and Manner of Driving Held Valid And Relevant Basis for Rejecting Rising Blood-Alcohol Defense in Administrative License Suspension Action

Coffey v. Shiomoto (Director, Calif. Dept. of Motor Vehicles)

___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2013 WL 4196651 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)

Non-chemical test circumstantial evidence was properly considered an administrative hearing officer to reject a defense expert’s opinion that driver was under .08 percent at the time of driving notwithstanding his post-driving chemical test results of .08 and .09 (Breath), followed by blood draw that later showed results of .095 and .096 percent.

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"
Board Certified San Francisco DUI Lawyer

Tags: San Francisco DUI lawyer, Drunk Driving Defense Cases, DUI Court Decisions, IID Restricted License, San Francisco DUI attorney, California DUI laws, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, DUI Laws, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Wed, May 21, 2014

Always Poll The Jury Following A Guilty Verdict!

People v. Jones (2013) No. 1-11-3586 (Unpublished)

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Second Division.

It often seems like a waste of time and gratuitous torment, but this case demonstrates that polling a jury after a guilty verdict occasionally bears fruit. 

A guilty verdict was announced by the foreperson following deliberations. The court told the jurors it was “going to ask each and every one of you whether or not that verdict was your verdict and if it's still your verdict.” After polling four jurors, the following exchange occurred:

“THE COURT: Nicholas Mack, was that your verdict and is this now your verdict?

JUROR MACK: No, but yes and no. 

THE COURT: Well, your answer can't be yes and no. Is that your verdict now?

JUROR MACK: Yes. 

THE COURT: Okay. And was that your verdict when you signed the verdict paper?

JUROR MACK: No. 

THE COURT: Okay, when you signed the verdict, that was not your verdict, a finding of guilty?

JUROR MACK: According—excuse me, according to the law, yes. But, it was other things that I felt that made him not guilty.

THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask you that question again: Was that your verdict and is this now your verdict that he is guilty?

JUROR MACK: Yes.”

Defendant appealed the guilty verdict on the ground that the trial judge erred in the way he questioned the juror and that the juror’s equivocal responses created doubt about the validity of the verdict.

The appellate court made the following points based on prior case law:

  • The purpose of polling a jury is to determine that the verdict accurately reflects each juror's vote and that the vote was not the result of coercion.
  • While the trial court should not turn the polling process into an opportunity for further deliberations, the court also must not hinder a juror's expression of dissent.
  • If a juror indicates some hesitancy or ambivalence in his or her answer, then the trial judge must determine the juror's present intent by affording the juror the opportunity to make an unambiguous reply as to his or her present state of mind.
  • If the court determines a juror dissents from the verdict, the proper remedy is for the trial court, on its own motion if necessary, to either direct the jury to retire for further deliberations or to discharge the jury. 
  • The trial court's determination as to the voluntariness of a juror's assent to a verdict will not be set aside unless the trial court's conclusion is clearly unreasonable. 

The Court affirmed the conviction, determining that the juror's response established his agreement that defendant was guilty under the law, and that the jury verdict reflected his intentions.  It further determined that the complete colloquy indicated the juror was given the opportunity to dissent and ultimately stated that the guilty verdict reflected his vote.  Finally, it found the trial court’s determination that the juror voluntarily assented to the verdict was reasonable.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  One cannot determine the tone of the judge’s questioning from the cold transcript (well, maybe you can!), but that is the key as to whether this juror was bullied by the trial court into capitulating. The defense made a post-trial motion for a new trial, contending that the verdict was not unanimous. However, it does not appear that any objection was made to the judge’s manner of questioning as it occurred.  One tactic the defense might have considered is to request an immediate recess once the juror responded, “No, but yes and no.” What would you have done?  Have you ever even prepared for this type of response from a juror being polled? Will you ever pass on the right to poll a jury after reading this case?

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"
 San Francisco DUI Lawyer


Tags: San Francisco DUI lawyer, Drunk Driving Defense Cases, DUI Court Decisions, IID Restricted License, San Francisco DUI attorney, California DUI laws, DUI Attorneys Sonoma, Ignition Interlock Device, DUI Laws, DUI Attorneys Napa, DUI Attorneys Marin