Call Today for Your Free Consultation
415-729-7300
Call Today for Your Free Consultation
415-729-7300
Recent Blog Posts
DUI Case Highlights from Paul Burglin San Francisco DUI Attorney - Alford v. State
Community Care-Taking Exception
Alford v. State (2012) Unpublished Opinion Following Rehearing
Texas R. App. P. 47 (No. 05-10-009-CR)
In evaluating a “community care-taking" exception to the warrant requirement, the Texas courts consider four non-exclusive factors: (1) the nature and level of distress exhibited by the individual; (2) the location of the individual; (3) whether the individual was alone or had access to assistance independent of the officer; and (4) to what extent the individual, if not assisted, presented a danger to himself or others.
Here, defendant was merely observed “kind of turned sideways [with half her] body out [the car and] leaning over saying something to the driver." They were purportedly talking “kind of loud" but the officer said he could not tell if there was a disturbance. As the officer approached, the passenger switched places with the driver and began to drive away. The officer did not say he observed anything indicating distress. The vehicle was at a dead-end street next to an open Jack-in-the-Box restaurant. The defendant was with her sister and had access to the restaurant if she needed help. There was no indication she was in need of any help.
DUI Case Highlights from Paul Burglin San Francisco DUI Attorney - Missoula v. Paffhaus
City of Missoula v. Paffhausen
___P.3d ___, 2012 WL 5866259 (Mont.), 2012 MT 265
The State argued that involuntary intoxication (purportedly caused in this case by a rape date drug) is no defense on the basis that mental state is not an element of the DUI offense. However, the absence of consciousness excludes the possibility of a voluntary act and “automatism" caused by involuntary intoxication is a valid affirmative defense. To prevail on it, the defendant must present sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that he was involuntarily intoxicated and was acting in an unconscious state.
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Blockbuster decision regarding blood draws
BLOCKBUSTER DECISION REGARDING WARRANTLESS BLOOD DRAWS IN DUI CASES
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a seminal decision this morning in Missouri v. McNeely ___ U.S. ___ (2103) - Docket No. 11-1425
The case presented the following issue on appeal:
“Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream?"
To put this in layman’s terms, the Court ruled upon whether police must normally obtain a search warrant before compelling a person arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence to submit to a needle injection for blood evidence.
Here is what the Court declared:
“We hold that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant."
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Case Law - Judicial Decision - People v. Mathson
The Affirmative Defense of Involuntary Intoxication Causing Unconsciousness - Case Law By Board Certified DUI Lawyer Paul Burglin
People v. Mathson
___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2012 WL 542716 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.)
An unanticipated reaction to medication, taken as prescribed, constitutes an “involuntary intoxication" defense in some jurisdictions. In California, a person who acts conscious is presumed conscious, but a defendant can overcome it by producing sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that he was unconscious when he acted during the commission of the alleged crime. People v. Hardy (1948) 33 Cal.2d 52. Involuntary intoxication that causes a state of unconsciousness is recognized. State v. Wilson (1967) 66 Cal.2d 749.
Suppose the individual knows, or should know based upon warning labels, medical advice, and/or past experience, that the use of Ambien might cause him to sleep-drive in an unconscious state. Does such knowledge negate an involuntary intoxication defense?
San Francisco DUI Attorney - Case Law - Judicial Decision - Chambers v. State
Recent Judicial Decisions - Case Law By Board Certified DUI Lawyer Paul Burglin
Chambers v. State
___ S.W.3d ___, 2012 Ark. 407, 2012 WL 5360966 (Ark.)
In this.108 /.105 breath-alcohol test case, defendant objected to the admission into evidence of certificates certifying that the Datamaster was properly certified and calibrated, on the basis that they constituted testimonial hearsay in violation of Melendez-Diaz .
Finding the subject certifications were not created for the purpose of providing evidence against any particular defendant, the Court held they were non-testimonial (citing Commonwealth v. Zeininger , 459 Mass. 775, 947 N.E.2d 1060).
“We agree with the Court of Appeals of Oregon, which concluded that such records `bear a more attenuated relationship to conviction: They support one fact (the accuracy of the machine) that, in turn, supports another fact that can establish guilt (blood alcohol level).’ State v. Bergin , [231 Or.App. 36] at 41, 217 P.3d 1087. Indeed, it appears that the Supreme Court has already acknowledged this attenuation, stating in Melendez-Diaz , supra at 2532 n. 1: Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion…we do not hold, and it is not the case, that anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample, or accuracy of the testing device, must appear in person as part of the prosecution’s case…[D]ocuments prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance may well qualify as nontestimonial records."
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Case Law - Judicial Decision - Jenkins v. State
Recent Judicial Decisions - Case Law By Board Certified DUI Attorney Paul Burglin
Jenkins v. State
___So.3d ___ (2012 WL 4711432 (Miss.)
Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for possessing less than two grams of cocaine. His conviction was affirmed even though the analyst who performed the test and identified the substance did not testify. She was on indefinite medical leave with stage-four cancer so her supervisor/technical reviewer testified instead.
The surrogate witness performed “procedural checks" by reviewing all of the data submitted and the conclusions contained in the analyst’s report. Based on this review, he reached his own conclusion that the substance was cocaine. The certified report was signed by both the analyst and the testifying supervisor.
The Court held that this satisfied the Confrontation Clause and was allowed by Bullcoming . The salient point was that the supervisor was actively involved in the report’s production and had intimate knowledge of the analyses even though he did not perform the test first hand.
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - DUI Judicial Decision Analysis
Recent DUI Judicial Decisions With Analysis By Board Certified DUI Attorney Paul Burglin
Calibration Records Held Admissible Over Confrontation Objections
People v. Lopez
55 Cal.4 th 569 (2012)
Seizing on Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Bullcoming (“machine-generated" data may be admissible), the California Supreme Court held that a lab report was properly admitted even though the analyst did not testify. It was a six-page report that included the following:
Page 1 - Chain of custody log sheet (showing the results of nine blood samples the analyst tested on the same date, including defendant’s)
Page 2 - Printout of the GC machine’s calibrations on the day of the test
Pages 3 and 6 - Quality control runs before and after the samples were tested
Pages 4 and 5 - Two computer-generated numerical results (.0906 and.0908)
The majority opinion described pages 2-6 of the documents as machine-generated data measuring calibrations, quality control, and the blood-alcohol concentration. Though the analyst had initialed page 1 and signed page 2, there was no statement by him on any of the pages. The testifying criminalist said he was a colleague of the analyst and had trained him, was intimately familiar with his procedures in testing blood for alcohol, and that everyone in the lab was trained in the same manner. Based on his own training, he said he concurred with the results. Cf., Bullcoming (no underlying data or chromatograms were offered at trial in Bullcoming , and no independent opinion was offered by the surrogate witness).
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Confrontation Cases
State v. Sorensen
___N.W.2d ___, 283 Neb. 932, 2012 WL 1889206 (Neb.) (May 25, 2012)
A nurse’s certificate that blood was drawn in a medically accepted manner, signed at the request of law enforcement in connection with Defendant’s DUI arrest, was “testimonial" within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause. It was in essence an “affidavit" and improperly admitted into evidence because the nurse was not subject to cross-examination.
San Francisco DUI Lawyer Case Law Updates
The following decision grants an IID-restricted license to a second offender who was on probation at the time for his first DUI conviction. The Petitioner's last name has been redacted to protect his privacy (we always protect client confidentiality). Until now, the DMV has been refusing to grant early IID-restricted licenses to said individuals. While this ruling only applies to the Petitioner, it may well cause the DMV to change its current policy. If not, feel free to contact Paul Burglin for legal assistance in getting your driving privilege restored.
San Francisco DUI Attorney Case Law Updates
The Legality Of The Police Stop Is Held Relevant To The "Lawful
Arrest" Issue Presented In License Suspension Hearings
Wisconsin v. Anagnos (2012)
Wisconsin Supreme Court (No. 2010 AP19812)
___ N.W.2d ___ (2012 WL 2378548)
Wisconsin’s refusal hearing statute allows a licensee to contest whether he was lawfully arrested. As part of this challenge, he may properly contend that the arrest was unlawful because the traffic stop that preceded it was not justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
This decision is good persuasive precedent for California lawyers handling DMV administrative per hearings.
Questions? Let's Get Started.
