999 Fifth Avenue, Suite 350, San Rafael, CA 94901

Call Today for Your Free Consultation
Call Us 415-729-7300

DUI Case Highlights from Paul Burglin San Francisco DUI Attorney - Sauls v. State

Posted on in

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the Sauls v. State case below, are binding legal precedents that California courts must follow in drunk driving cases. Out-of-state decisions from state appellate courts are not binding on California Courts, but they are often looked to as persuasive precedent by trial judges presiding over DUI motions to suppress evidence and trial.

This is why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.

Sauls v. State , ___ S.E.2d __, 2013 WL 292146 (GA Supreme Court)

Trooper failed to admonish DUI suspect that his failure to submit to chemical testing could be used against him in Court. This was deemed a material omission from GA’s “Implied Consent" statute which requires a full reading of the requirement and consequences.

The GA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered suppression of the refusal at trial, even though Defendant had interrupted the trooper during the reading.

California courts have issued some mixed opinions in this area, with one published decision holding that repeated interruptions by the driver will dispense with the requirement that the officer read the entire “implied consent" admonition. However, reasonable requests for clarification or the repeating of certain consequences should not trigger a refusal finding where the officer fails oblige the driver.

Back to Top