Posted on May 24, 2010 in DUI

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

In this series of blog postings I am going to discuss search and seizure issues related to drunk driving cases. However, the totality of search and seizure law is perhaps as voluminous and complicated as drunk driving (DUI) law.

DETENTION AND ARREST | Seizure of a Person | Prolonged Detention

In 1979, the California Supreme Court held that when a police officer has (a) stopped a motorist for a traffic violation for which the latter cannot be taken into custody and (b) has already detained the motorist for the time necessary to perform his functions arising from the alleged violation, he cannot thereafter lawfully detain him for an additional period of time solely for the purpose of conducting a warrant check. People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 22, 2010 in DUI

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? My name is Paul Burglin and I am a San Francisco Bay area drunk driving attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities.

In this series of blog postings I am going to discuss search and seizure issues related to drunk driving cases. However, the totality of search and seizure law is perhaps as voluminous and complicated as drunk driving (DUI) law.

DETENTION AND ARREST | Seizure of a Person | Detention vs. Consensual Contact

In People v. Jones (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 519, the court summarized that the law related to a determination of whether or not any particular encounter between a person and cop is a detention versus a consensual contact. The court said:
Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, and asking him if he is willing to answer some questions. (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497.) A person has been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. (United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554; see also INS v. Delgado (1984) 466 U.S. 210, 215.) As the Supreme Court has noted, "The test is necessarily imprecise, because it is designed to assess the coercive effect of police conduct, taken as a whole, rather than to focus on particular details of that conduct in isolation. Moreover, what constitutes a restraint on liberty prompting a person to conclude that he is not free to ‘leave' will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs." (Michigan v. Chesternut (1988) 486 U.S. 567, 573.)

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 21, 2010 in DUI

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

In this series of blog postings I am going to discuss search and seizure issues related to drunk driving cases. However, the totality of search and seizure law is perhaps as voluminous and complicated as drunk driving (DUI) law.

DETENTION AND ARREST | Seizure of a Person | Arrest vs. Detention, and Constitutional Requirements

"The Fourth Amendment prohibits ‘unreasonable searches and seizures' by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest." United States v. Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266, 273, citing United States v. Cortez (1981) 449 U.S. 411, 417; Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 9.

Continue Reading ››