Posted on February 21, 2014 in DUI

Implied Consent Is Not Fourth Amendment Consent
State v. Butler
232 Ariz. 84, 302 P.3d 609

Independent of the implied consent statute, the Fourth Amendment requires an arrestee's consent to be voluntary to justify a warrantless blood draw. If the arrestee is a juvenile, the youth's age and a parent's presence are relevant factors for a trial court to consider in evaluating whether consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances.

Are Statutes Criminalizing or Enhancing Sentences Based on Chemical Test Refusals Constitutional?

HOOVER v.
State of OHIO (6 ^th Cir. 2013)

No. 13–3330.

Unpublished Per Curiam

2013 WL 6284256

Hoover was arrested for drunk driving and refused to take a breathalyzer test. He was charged with driving under the influence under an Ohio statute which doubles the punishment if a breath test is refused and the suspect has a prior conviction. (Ohio Rev. Code 4511.19(A)(2)).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 02, 2014 in DUI

Read my article on the DUI News Blog (www.duinewsblog.org) about constitutionally suspect DUI Checkpoint operations, many of which are operated right here in California. Call me today, or send me an e-mail, if you desire a consultation about your DUI arrest. 

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 19, 2013 in DUI

More On Warrantless Blood Draws - What Constitutes Consent?

In Missouri v. McNeely , which was discussed in our previous post, the United States Supreme Court affirmed its holding in a 1966 case called Schmerber v. California (several California Court of Appeal decisions in the 47-year interim had watered down and misinterpreted Schmerber , declaring that it authorized blood draws without a warrant anytime a person was lawfully arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence). In fact, Schmerber very clearly indicated that a warrant is required except in limited situations where there is no time to get a warrant.

Now that McNeely has overruled those California cases, warrantless blood draws in DUI cases present a bevy of potential issues for suppression of the evidence in the absence of consent.

Consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. California’s implied consent law (Vehicle Code section 23612) purportedly constitutes an exception where the suspect has been lawfully arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. It reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 03, 2013 in DUI

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision belows underscores 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.
MISSOURI V. MCNEELY

THIS U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION OVERRULES SEVERAL CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL CASES THAT ERRONEOUSLY HELD POLICE MAY FORCIBLY TAKE A BLOOD SAMPLE FROM A DUI SUSPECT WITHOUT A WARRANT BASED SOLELY ON A LAWFUL ARREST AND MEDICALLY APPROVED MANNER OF DRAWING BLOOD.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN AND HOW IS IT PLAYING OUT?

The Facts in McNeely : DUI suspect refused both breath and blood testing and was subjected to a forced blood draw at a hospital. The State did not argue that exigent circumstances existed which excused a warrant, and the arresting officer did not identify in his testimony any circumstances suggesting that he faced an emergency or unusual delay in trying to obtain a warrant. The blood-alcohol evidence was ordered suppressed by the trial court based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 19, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the State v. Newman 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.

State v. Newman , ___P.3d___ (2013 WL 2370589 (Or.) – Docket No. S060182

An element of proof for DUI conviction in Oregon is that the accused engaged in a volitional act that led to the driving. The trial court barred the defense from having an expert witness testify about “sleep driving" as part of a defense that defendant’s act of driving was not volitional.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 12, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the U.S. v. Tavera 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.

Defendant was a passenger in a truck transporting concealed methamphetamine. He denied having any knowledge of it but was convicted nevertheless. His conviction was vacated when it was discovered after trial that the co-defendant driver had told the prosecutor during plea negotiations that Defendant had no knowledge of the drug conspiracy.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 04, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the People v. Gaytan 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.

People v. Gaytan (IL - Court of Appeal, Dist. 4) May 13, 2013 – Docket No. 4–12–0217)

The IL statute at issue provides that the “registration plate shall at all times be free from any materials that would obstruct the visibility of the plate, including, but not limited to, glass covers and plastic covers."

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 26, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the State v. Reed 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.

State v. Reed

- S.W.3d - -, 2013 WL 2285129 (Mo.App. S.D.) – Docket No. SD 32465

The State appealed the trial court’s suppression of blood-alcohol test results by arguing that the following “totality of circumstances" presented an exigent circumstance that dispensed with a warrant requirement: “(1) the trooper had to complete a prior DWI investigation prior to turning his attention to Reed; (2) the trooper had to allow twenty minutes for Reed to attempt to contact an attorney before refusing to consent to the blood test; (3) the trooper had to transport Reed to the hospital (for the test); (4) the evanescent nature of blood alcohol concentration; and (5) the additional hour or two delay necessary to obtain a search warrant. The State frames the argument thusly: `Does a two hour and five minute delay caused by a prior driving while intoxicated investigation, the evanescent nature of blood alcohol concentration in a person's blood, and an additional hour or two hour delay necessary to obtain a search warrant create an exigent circumstance to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment?’"

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 12, 2013 in DUI

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.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 30, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the Commonwealth v. Brown 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.

Commonwealth v. Brown (Mass. Appeals Court June 20, 2013 – Docket No. 12-P-614)

Defendant’s refusal to participate in (or complete) field sobriety testing may not be introduced by the State as evidence of guilt. Admission would place the accused in a Catch-22 situation - participate in the FST’s and furnish incriminating evidence, or refuse and produce “consciousness of guilt" evidence.

Continue Reading ››