Officer's Instructions:
Obtain a Kern Regional Crime Laboratory Blood Collection Kit used for DUI cases. The laboratory provides these kits for pickup Monday – Friday, from 8 am - 5 pm. Please note: it is important to obtain blood specimens as soon as possible after the alleged offense. Please do not take parts from another kit due to kit expiration dates and lot numbers.
Remove all of the contents of the kit and set aside the evidence tape.
Contents of the kit include:
1. White cardboard box
2. Plastic box
3. 2 Vacutainer1 tubes inside plastic holders
4. Sterile syringe
5. 2 tube labels
6. Povidone-iodine prep pad
7. 5 pieces of evidence tape
8. Biohazard bag with absorbent pad
Once the contents of the kit are removed, please complete the following:
a. Accurately and neatly complete the two tubelabels for each blood tube
b. Accurately and neatly complete the label adhered to the top of the clear plastic box (blood collection report and chain of custody).
c. Accurately and neatly complete the label adhered to the bottom of the white cardboard box (request for analysis).
Take note of the white powder in the clear glass Vacutainer tubes. Please ensure that both tubes contain the white powder. Give the technician performing the blood draw the clear plastic box with 2 Vacutainer tubes and sterile needle. Witness the withdrawal of the blood samples by the DUI suspect - do not allow the blood tubes out of your observation at any time.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Challenging The "Nuetral Formula" Criteria in a DUI Checkpoint Case
California has grown increasingll dependent on DUI checkpoints in the arrest of DWI drivers. There are ways to challenge these detentions and ensure that the police complied with the laws. Attacks on drunk driving roadblock arrests can be based upon any failure to comply with the “certain limitations,” which the Ingersoll opinion referred to. Each is discussed in detail in that opinion. Nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444, criticized these guidelines or recommended others. The Ingersoll guidelines fall under the following general headings:
A. Decision Making at the Supervisory Level ( In many cases the checkpoint is set up by a Sergeant with limited Supervisory Powers)
B. Limits on Discretion of Field Officers
C. Maintenance of Safety Conditions
D. Reasonable Location
E. Time and Duration
F. Indicia of Official Nature of Roadblock
G. Length and Nature of Detention
H. Advance Publicity
One of the best challenges to a DUI roadblock is to demonstrate the lack of uniformity in the operation of the checkpoint. With regard to the issue concerning the limits on discretion by field officers, the California Supreme Court, in Ingersoll v. Palmer, supra, noted the following:
A related concern is that motorist should not be subject to the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field as to who is to be stopped. Instead, a neutral formula such as every driver or every third, fifth or tenth driver, should be employed. To permit an officer to determine to stop any particular driver or car when there is no legitimate basis for the determination would be to sanction the kind of unconstrained and standardless discretion which the United States Supreme Court sought to circumcise in its decision in Prouse, supra, [citations omitted]. In all the checkpoint programs at issue here, neutral mathematical selection criteria were used.
Matthew Ruff is a DUI Lawyer in Torrance California.
A. Decision Making at the Supervisory Level ( In many cases the checkpoint is set up by a Sergeant with limited Supervisory Powers)
B. Limits on Discretion of Field Officers
C. Maintenance of Safety Conditions
D. Reasonable Location
E. Time and Duration
F. Indicia of Official Nature of Roadblock
G. Length and Nature of Detention
H. Advance Publicity
One of the best challenges to a DUI roadblock is to demonstrate the lack of uniformity in the operation of the checkpoint. With regard to the issue concerning the limits on discretion by field officers, the California Supreme Court, in Ingersoll v. Palmer, supra, noted the following:
A related concern is that motorist should not be subject to the unbridled discretion of the officer in the field as to who is to be stopped. Instead, a neutral formula such as every driver or every third, fifth or tenth driver, should be employed. To permit an officer to determine to stop any particular driver or car when there is no legitimate basis for the determination would be to sanction the kind of unconstrained and standardless discretion which the United States Supreme Court sought to circumcise in its decision in Prouse, supra, [citations omitted]. In all the checkpoint programs at issue here, neutral mathematical selection criteria were used.
Matthew Ruff is a DUI Lawyer in Torrance California.
Friday, November 1, 2013
The HGN Test Explained
In a DUI case, officers use many tests to decide whether to arrest a person for DWI. Among them is the HGN test, here is how it is performed:
A Stimulus, such as a pen or pencil is held in front of the subject’s face, approximately 12 to 15 inches (30 to 38 cm) from the subject’s nose and slightly above eye level. This elevated eye position raised the upper lids and allowed the evaluator a better view of the eyes, but did not affect the results of the test. The subject was instructed to keep his or her head still and follow the stimulus with the eyes only. The subject’s left eye was observed first during each of the three component tests. Smooth pursuit was assessed by moving the stimulus to extreme left gaze and then to extreme right gaze at about 30 deg/sec. The test was repeated at least once for each eye. Nystagmus at maximum deviation was assessed by moving the stimulus first to extreme left gaze, then to extreme right gaze, such that no temporal sclera showed at either position, and held at each position for at least 4 seconds. Onset of gaze nystagmus was assessed by moving the stimulus at about 15 deg/sec to each side until nystagmus was observed. If nystagmus was present, the evaluator determined whether the angle of onset was less than 45 degrees.
According to one DUI Attorney, the HGN test is scored by the number of signs present for the two eyes, scoring one sign each per eye for lack of smooth pursuit, sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation, and onset of gaze nystagmus prior to 45 degrees. Therefore, the maximum number of signs is six. Previous laboratory and field validation studies have consistently demonstrated that the presence of four or more signs is highly correlated with BAC at either 0.10% or 0.08%.
A Stimulus, such as a pen or pencil is held in front of the subject’s face, approximately 12 to 15 inches (30 to 38 cm) from the subject’s nose and slightly above eye level. This elevated eye position raised the upper lids and allowed the evaluator a better view of the eyes, but did not affect the results of the test. The subject was instructed to keep his or her head still and follow the stimulus with the eyes only. The subject’s left eye was observed first during each of the three component tests. Smooth pursuit was assessed by moving the stimulus to extreme left gaze and then to extreme right gaze at about 30 deg/sec. The test was repeated at least once for each eye. Nystagmus at maximum deviation was assessed by moving the stimulus first to extreme left gaze, then to extreme right gaze, such that no temporal sclera showed at either position, and held at each position for at least 4 seconds. Onset of gaze nystagmus was assessed by moving the stimulus at about 15 deg/sec to each side until nystagmus was observed. If nystagmus was present, the evaluator determined whether the angle of onset was less than 45 degrees.
According to one DUI Attorney, the HGN test is scored by the number of signs present for the two eyes, scoring one sign each per eye for lack of smooth pursuit, sustained nystagmus at maximum deviation, and onset of gaze nystagmus prior to 45 degrees. Therefore, the maximum number of signs is six. Previous laboratory and field validation studies have consistently demonstrated that the presence of four or more signs is highly correlated with BAC at either 0.10% or 0.08%.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
AAA Reports The Cost Of A DUI Conviction in California Is Now $15,649.00
In 2010 the AAA did a study and found that a person can expect to pay over $12,000 if convicted of a DUI in California. That study was revised for 2013 and it has risen over $3,000. Due in large part to increased fines, booking fees and attorneys fees, the cost continues to skyrocket. The important thing to keep in mind is that these costs only are incurred if you are convicted of the DUI, if the offense is reduced or dismissed in Court your costs would be significantly less.
DUI Driver Responsible For Other Driver's Medical Bills Even Though He Was Partly Resonsible For Accident
In a recent case in California, People vs. Watson, the appeals court ruled that a DUI driver convicted in court must pay all of other driver's medical bills even though that driver was partly to blame for the accident. The defendant drove her dune buggy at night in the Imperial County dunes without headlights and at a high rate of speed. She hit a 15-year-old boy driving a quad, who suffered severe injuries to his leg during the collision. Defendant pled no contest to driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher (Vehicle Code section 23153, causing injury while DWI. She received probation. At a restitution hearing, she presented expert testimony regarding the victim's comparative fault, but the court failed to reduce the amount of restitution. Defendant appealed. The Court Affirmed. Finding that Penal Code Section 1202.4 mandates restitution to cover victims' economic losses, absent "compelling and extraordinary reasons." In People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, the court found the victim bore "substantial responsibility" for his injuries, and, as a result, "compelling and extraordinary reasons" justified the application of comparative fault principles. However, Millard does not require application of comparative fault in criminal proceedings, and, regardless, the victim was not substantially responsible for his injuries. In addition, restitution may be imposed under Penal Code section 1203.1 to serve broader goals, such as furthering rehabilitation, and, here, imposing the full victim restitution served rehabilitative purposes.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Thursday, October 17, 2013
What is the South Bay DUI Task Force?
California cities are among the top in the nation for enforcement of drunk driving and the strict patrol of its streets for potential dangerous drivers who have consumed alcohol and are impaired. One of the most prominent entities in the area that specialize in the arrest and prosecution of intoxicated motorists is known as the "South Bay DUI Task Force". So, what is it and where does it operate?
The SBDUITF as it is known, is located in the cities of Torrance, El Segundo, Redondo Beach, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, Manhattan Beach, Rolling Hills, Lawndale, Hawthorne and Lomita. The goal is to stop, detain, investigate and if necessary arrest a suspect believed to be DWI. As a local Burbank DUI Attorney who has defended thousands of defendants accused of driving under the influence I can attest to the fact that the task force is effective in arresting people, They hold the record for enforcement in Southern California and enlist the help of many cities to effectuate its goals, they also get many thousands of dollars from the state and MADD and will continue to win awards well into the next decade due to the fact they are so good at doing what they do.
If you are driving in the South Bay during any holiday weekend, Saturday night or the first and last days of the month chances are you will be seen and possibly stopped by the task force. Many think they are too aggressive and may push the limits of the laws, some even have alleged that they stop people in violation of their fourth amendment rights.
The SBDUITF as it is known, is located in the cities of Torrance, El Segundo, Redondo Beach, Gardena, Hermosa Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, Manhattan Beach, Rolling Hills, Lawndale, Hawthorne and Lomita. The goal is to stop, detain, investigate and if necessary arrest a suspect believed to be DWI. As a local Burbank DUI Attorney who has defended thousands of defendants accused of driving under the influence I can attest to the fact that the task force is effective in arresting people, They hold the record for enforcement in Southern California and enlist the help of many cities to effectuate its goals, they also get many thousands of dollars from the state and MADD and will continue to win awards well into the next decade due to the fact they are so good at doing what they do.
If you are driving in the South Bay during any holiday weekend, Saturday night or the first and last days of the month chances are you will be seen and possibly stopped by the task force. Many think they are too aggressive and may push the limits of the laws, some even have alleged that they stop people in violation of their fourth amendment rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)