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

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

Recent blog posts

The “community caretaking exception," justifies an otherwise unconstitutional warrantless search of an automobile where the search is conducted by law enforcement in an attempt to protect the general public from harm, as opposed to a search conducted during the course of a criminal investigation.

Paul Burglin, a DUI Attorney in the San Francisco Bay Area presents this case as an example:

Alford v. State of Texas , - S.W.3d - -, 2011 WL 3505698 (Tex.App.-Dallas)


State of New Jersey v. Brackin , - A.3d - -, 2011 WL 1661381 (N.J.Super.A.D.)

Defendant was pulled over after he was stopped at a green light for 10 seconds and then pulled away without incident.

The Court held that the pause at the green light “was not of sufficient length to have raised community caretaking concerns, particularly in circumstances in which defendant's driving after commencing to proceed through the light was unexceptionable. Officer Tobin could not have had a reasonable belief that a traffic law had been violated…because as he testified, no cars followed defendant's, and thus there was indisputably no traffic to obstruct. Thus, we adhere to our conclusion that a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a motor vehicle violation had been committed was not established."


State of Wisconsin v. Devries , Slip Copy, 2011 WL 1844721 (Wis.App.)

Defendant was found guilty of drunk driving and sentenced as a 5th timer based on the inclusion of Arizona and California drunk-driving matters as prior “convictions" under the Wisconsin statutes. WIS. STAT. § 340.01(9r) defines a “conviction" as including: a “fail[ure] to comply with the law in a court of original jurisdiction"; and a “violation of a condition of release without the deposit of property."

EDITOR’S NOTE: Under Apprendi , all matters that enhance a penalty (except prior convictions) must be proved during trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Plus, the defendant normally has the right of confrontation. How SCOTUS would treat this type of prior “conviction" remains to be seen.

State of Georgia v. Davis , - S.E.2d - -, 2011 WL 1843166 (Ga.App.)

The State's breath test results were suppressed on the basis of a failure to reasonably accommodate the defendant's request for an independent test.

In rejecting the State's argument that Defendant withdrew her request for an independent blood test after the officer advised her that she would have to pay for the test but failed to allow her the opportunity to make other payment arrangements, the Court noted:


People v. Varela , - Cal.Rptr.3d - -, 2011 WL 1126036 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3771

CVC 415 defines a “ ‘motor vehicle’ [a]s a vehicle that is self-propelled."

CVC 473 defines a “ ‘pocket bike’ [a]s a two-wheeled motorized device that has a seat or saddle for the use of the rider, and that is not designed or manufactured for highway use."


Open Container – No Chemical Test Required To Establish Alcohol

Derosiers v. District of Colombia , - A.3d - -, 2011 WL 1894854 (D.C.)

Circumstantial evidence held sufficient to support a conviction for possession of an open container of alcohol in a vehicle, even in the absence of a chemical test of the liquid in glass jar that allegedly contained alcohol. Police officer observed and smelled liquid and recognized, based on his experience, distinctive smell of vodka emanating from clear liquid inside glass jar found next to defendant, smell of alcohol emanated from defendant and vehicle containing jar, and defendant, who was asleep in front seat of parked vehicle, appeared to be intoxicated at time jar was found next to her.

Police Officer’s Opinion Of Guilt

State v McLean 205 N.J. 438 (N.J. 2011)

The NJ Supreme Court reversed a drug conviction which had been partially based upon use of the so called "lay opinion rule" where the police officer testified based upon his training and experience as to what constituted intent to distribute.


Destroyed Or Lost Video Tape

People of Illinois v. Aronson , - N.E.2d - -, 2011 WL 941306 (Ill.App. 2 Dist.)

A video tape was made on the very issue disputed by the parties (i.e., whether reasonable grounds existed for the officer to believe defendant was driving while intoxicated). Although the officer’s testimony was deemed credible and no finding was made of intentional or willful destruction of the tape, the trial court’s decision to rescind his license suspension was affirmed on the basis that the lost tape, coupled with the defendant’s testimony, outweighed the evidence in the State’s favor.

State of New Jersey v. Burns, Not Reported in A.3d, 2011 WL 1584364 (N.J.Super.A.D.)

Court rejected a licensee's contention that the State must 'prove-up' the admissibility, accuracy, and reliability of the breath test equipment before finding a “refusal” to submit to it. 

The Court noted that a similar contention concerning the qualifications of a breath test operator was previously rejected, citing In the Matter of John Ferris, 177 N.J.Super. 161 (App.Div.1981), certif. denied, 87 N.J. 392, (1981).


U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Chemical Test Result In DUI Case Is Inadmissible At Trial Unless Lab Technician Who Performed Analysis Is Subject To Cross-Examination By Defense In Court

Decision Trumps Prior California Decisions

Declaring that “[t]he Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause confers upon the accused ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, . . . the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’” the United States Supreme Court reversed a drunk driving conviction where the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the actual lab analyst who completed, signed and certified a forensic laboratory report concerning his purported blood-alcohol level. Bullcoming v. New Mexico - Case No. 09-10876.


Bay Area / San Francisco DUI lawyer Paul Burglin filed the following appellate brief in the First District Court of Appeal today (July 14, 2011), urging the Court of Appeal to affirm a ruling that will give multiple drunk driver offenders the ability to obtain an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) restricted license after just 90 days of suspension for a second offender, and six months for a third offender.

Read Brief Here

Raj Rajaratnam Takes The Fifth, And For Good Reason

Raj Rajaratnam took the Fifth and declined to testify in his own defense against charges of insider trading. Facing decades in prison if found guilty, you might think the guy would take a shot at trying to personally tell his side of the story.

Barry Bonds did the same thing - remaining silent in his trial on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.


Here in Part 3 in my series of related posts, I will continue my discussion about the Barry Bonds trial and how it relates to DUI or Drunk Driving Defense cases. As a San Francisco DUI attorney, there are a number of similarities I have seen between this case and those that I am involved in.

When a jury convicts a defendant as part of an agreement to simply end their own division over various charges, and that verdict is inconsistent with its verdict or deadlock on other counts, it’s a violation of their duty as jurors and a denial of due process. The defense will contend that the jury’s failure to unanimously conclude that Bonds had committed perjury before the Grand Jury is inconsistent with their finding him guilty on the obstruction of justice count (the jury deadlocked on the three perjury counts, with one perjury count being 11-1 for guilty).

Bonds was found guilty of having violated Title 18, section 1503, of the United States Code, which prohibits one from intentionally giving false, evasive, or misleading testimony to a federal grand jury. The prosecution will contend that there is nothing inconsistent with the jury having found Bonds that he was intentionally evasive in his testimony, even though there may have been a reasonable doubt as to whether he perjured himself.


Continuing on from my last post , let’s talk about the Barry Bonds trial and how it reflects on general criminal defense strategy. As a San Francisco DUI attorney, I can tell you the same strategies apply if you have been charged with and are being defended for a DUI and I address this directly later in my post.

You may ask, “Why did the defense not put on any evidence in the Barry Bonds trial?"

They did. “Wait," you say, “I just read where the defense rested without calling a single witness!" That’s true, but the defense evidence came in the form of cross-examination of prosecutorial witnesses. Cross-examination has been referred to as the greatest engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. That may or may not be true, but it is undoubtedly one of the most powerful weapons in a trial lawyer’s arsenal.


March 28, 2011 - I spent the morning observing the perjury trial of United States of America v. Barry Lamar Bonds at the federal courthouse in San Francisco. You might wonder why a San Francisco DUI attorney would do this - what does it have to do with drunk driving defense? - so I will get to that in a minute.

Last week, Bonds’ childhood friend, Steve Hoskins, testified that baseball’s all-time home run leader was complaining about a sore rear end following needle injections at spring training in the early 2000’s. He said his shoe and glove sizes both got bigger, and that Bonds’ use of steroids was “getting out of hand." So much so, said Hoskins, that he secretly recorded trainer Greg Anderson acknowledging Bonds’ use of steroids so he could prove it to Bobby Bonds (Barry’s father who, according to Hoskins, was in denial about Barry’s use of steroids).

This morning, the first witness on the stand was Giants equipment manager Mike Murphy. Murphy testified that Bonds’ hat size increased from 7-¼ to 7-3/8, but also acknowledged that Willie Mays’ hat size also increased about the same amount after his retirement. Nobody has ever said that Willie Mays used steroids.



Business & Professions Code (B&P) §490, with specified exceptions, enables any licensing board to discipline a licensee who has been convicted of a crime that is “substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the license was issued."

Business & Professions Code §480 authorizes licensing boards to deny a license to an applicant based upon a conviction of a crime. A “no contest" plea or expungement order does not relieve a licensee from discipline or prevent denial of a license due to a conviction.


Felony Drunk Driving - How Experienced DUI Lawyers Can Sometimes Get It Reduced To A Misdemeanor

There are several ways that a California drunk driving incident in California can be treated as a felony, but prosecutors and judges retain separate discretionary authority to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor in most circumstances.  Here is a passage from Chapter 1 of California Drunk Driving Law, by Kuwatch, Burglin & Simons (James Publishing) that summarizes this authority:

Offenses that may be prosecuted as either a felony or a misdemeanor are commonly referred to as “wobblers.” Even though a prosecutor may charge a wobbler offense as a felony, the trial court may declare it to be a misdemeanor at either the preliminary examination, the time of sentencing, or anytime following a grant of probation. P.C. §17(b).  Although California Penal Code (P.C.) § 1238(d) may, under some circumstances, permit the People to obtain appellate review of a P.C. § 17(b)(5) reduction order by way of a petition for writ of mandamus (see, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968), as a general rule the People have no right to appeal such an order. People v. Williams (2005) 35 Cal.4th 817. Alvarez contains a helpful discussion regarding the appropriate considerations for a P.C. §17(b)(5) reduction order.  The Court’s power to reduce a wobbler to a misdemeanor exists even if the felony involves a GBI enhancement.  People v. Feyrer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 426. California Drunk Driving Law, by Kuwatch, Burglin & Simons (James Publishing) Copyright 2011.


The Latest Hurdles On IID-Restricted Licenses For Multiple DUI Offenders by San Francisco DUI Lawyer Paul Burglin

Even those second and third-time DUI offenders with both violation and conviction dates subsequent to July 1, 2010, are encountering hurdles with the DMV in terms of getting an early IID-restricted license.

Hurdle # 1: Until the conviction is actually recorded by the DMV's Mandatory Actions Unit, local DMV offices will not issue the IID-restricted license. Delays in the recording of the conviction by Mandatory Actions are reportedly backlogged by 8 to 12 weeks! There is no legal excuse for this delay!


San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin has persuaded a second Superior Court judge in Marin County to order the DMV to grant his client an Ignition-Interlock restricted driver's license. Judge Lynn Duryee and Judge Verna Adams of the Marin County Superior Court have now both ruled in favor of Burglin's clients that the new IID-restricted license law effective July 1, 2010, applies to individuals with violation dates prior to July 1, 2010.

If you are a second or third time DUI offender interested in obtaining an IID-restricted license, contact San Francisco DUI attorney Paul Burglin today at (415) 453-0534.

RULING February 1, 2011


May the Police Lawfully Stop A Motorist Based Solely On Somebody Reporting a Drunk Driver?

The key to beating a DUI charge in San Francisco---or at least getting a reduced offer on it---is to retain a local San Francisco DUI lawyer who specializes in this field. Such a lawyer will know the ramifications of a DUI conviction and how the California DMV will treat a drunk driving conviction. If you have one or more prior convictions for DUI or DWI (some states refer to it as "driving while impaired"), you want an attorney who is knowledgeable about the ways to attack prior convictions and the adequacy of out-of-state convictions.


Back to Top