The answer to this question is both yes and no. Let me explain, if you are arrested for a DUI in California you are given an option of taking either a blood or breath test if you are suspected of driving with a BAC of ,08 or more. These are the state mandated choice of tests that satisfy a driver's requirements under the implied consent laws. But is a urine test an option at all? The answer is yes. Once a person gives the state required breath test and a valid sample is obtained, the driver then has an option of giving a urine sample as a way to preserve the evidence for later testing. You see. a breath sample cannot be saved for later analysis so California law under a case called Trombetta allows the accused to take a blood or urine, at their own expense, for future testing once the case gets into Court.
There is another way a person has a right to take a urine test. If the arresting officer believes that the DUI suspect is under the influence of drugs as well as alcohol or if the only substance is drugs. the choice of tests at that point is either blood or urine since a person's breath cannot give an accurate reading of the presence of drugs such as marijuana. In this instance, the driver has the absolute right to submit to a urine test rather than a blood test unless, for some reason a urine test is unavailable. Should a suspected DUI driver refuse to take either a blood or urine test when suspected of a DUID, under California DUI Laws, the driver will face the possible punishment of a suspension of up to 3 years by the California DMV.
In conclusion, a urine test is an option in certain circumstances within a California drunk driving context. Specifically, when the driver takes a breath test and wants a sample of his or her urine to be saved for future toxicological analysis at his or her own expense. Also, when the DUI suspect is believed to be under the influence of a drug which cannot be detected by a breath test.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Can a Police Officer Stop Your Car Just For Leaving a Bar?
DUI arrests are fast becoming the number one type of criminal charge in the U.S. today according to many sources. The police are often encouraged and empowered to stop as many motorists as they can in the hopes of catching a driver who is impaired by alcohol or drugs, or sometimes both. In the zeal for getting DUI drivers off the road we sometimes forget that the Bill of Rights affords each one of us the protection from unreasonable searches and detentions by law enforcement, with this being said, is it reasonable or legal to stop a car just because the driver was observed leaving a bar or drinking establishment? Some say it is OK, others believe that unless the officer sees some illegal action, that type of stop would be illegal.
According to Bruce Blythe, a Bakersfield Criminal Defense Attorney who handles many DUI cases, a stop by police simply based on the fact that the driver was seen walking out of a bar would be Constitutionally impermissible. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment, according to Blythe, is the premise that any "seizure" of a citizen by the government must be based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This suspicion need not rise to the level of actual certainty, but must cause a reasonable person to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot. In the scenario presented, Blythe argues that the officer would lack any objectively reasonable belief due to the fact that patronizing a bar is not illegal, nor is there any fact upon which the officer could point to that would lead him to a conclusion that the driver had been drinking and was impaired to the degree that he or she could no longer drive the vehicle safely.
In this type of a fact pattern, the absence of any articulated facts to support the belief that the driver was impaired or above the legal limit in California would certainly result in a finding that the contact and subsequent DUI arrest violates the Constitution and thereby would be illegal under CA state law.
According to Bruce Blythe, a Bakersfield Criminal Defense Attorney who handles many DUI cases, a stop by police simply based on the fact that the driver was seen walking out of a bar would be Constitutionally impermissible. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment, according to Blythe, is the premise that any "seizure" of a citizen by the government must be based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This suspicion need not rise to the level of actual certainty, but must cause a reasonable person to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot. In the scenario presented, Blythe argues that the officer would lack any objectively reasonable belief due to the fact that patronizing a bar is not illegal, nor is there any fact upon which the officer could point to that would lead him to a conclusion that the driver had been drinking and was impaired to the degree that he or she could no longer drive the vehicle safely.
In this type of a fact pattern, the absence of any articulated facts to support the belief that the driver was impaired or above the legal limit in California would certainly result in a finding that the contact and subsequent DUI arrest violates the Constitution and thereby would be illegal under CA state law.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Do DUI Laws Favor The Wealthy?
Is it possible that the law actually favors those who can best afford fines, lawyers and the expense involved in defending a long drawn out battle in the Courts? One authority says yes. California makes it difficult for a person to win a DUI unless they fight the charges, and one recent study seems to suggest that those who can pay the fees to an attorney to drag the case out as long as possible might actually benefit the most.
According to one group, the odds favor those that can litigate the most, and the results are stunning. The legal group Maxim Legit says that if you are charged with driving under the influence and take the time and resources to hire a DUI lawyer to challenge the case in Court, the statistics suggest the outcome will be more favorable. Indeed, the numbers point to a range of success of at least 63 percent versus only 12 of those who do not retain counsel and defend the case. Although the numbers have not been peer reviewed nor generally accepted in the scientific community, the general consensus seems to point to a reliable result.
According to one group, the odds favor those that can litigate the most, and the results are stunning. The legal group Maxim Legit says that if you are charged with driving under the influence and take the time and resources to hire a DUI lawyer to challenge the case in Court, the statistics suggest the outcome will be more favorable. Indeed, the numbers point to a range of success of at least 63 percent versus only 12 of those who do not retain counsel and defend the case. Although the numbers have not been peer reviewed nor generally accepted in the scientific community, the general consensus seems to point to a reliable result.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Bakersfield DUI Attorney Proves His Client Was Stopped Illegally
About a thousand DUI stops occur every minute around this country, most are lawful and warranted , some are not. In some cases the police pull over a car for some reason that has nothing to do with whether they saw a violation of the law or some suspicion of criminal activity. for example, in one recent case a DUI Attorney in Bakersfield proved that his client was pulled over unlawfully by a CHP officer after leaving a popular bar and nightclub. The officer claimed the car was being driven without any headlights, however, evidence submitted at the DMV hearing in the case rebutted this contention. Counsel for the driver fully investigated the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest and put together a case that pointed to the fact that the car's lights must have been on at the time.
On the night of the incident, the driver of the car was pulled out, asked to perform FST's and then arrested for DUI. His blood alcohol level was above .15% BAC. He was charged with driving under the influence, his license was confiscated and he spent the night in jail. The Bakersfield DUI Lawyer challenged police report at a formal hearing in the Kern County Driver Safety Office of the California DMV. Evidence was presented that showed the lights on the car were on and counsel argued that the reason for the stop may have been motivated by a "hunch" alone that the driver was intoxicated because he was observed leaving the bar around 2 a.m.
At the conclusion of the case, the hearing Judge decided in favor of the licensee and ordered that his license be returned forthwith. This case underscores a little known problem that underlies the "war on DUI" in this country. While it is logical that all resources possible should be spent to deter and enforce the current DWI laws, it should not be done at the expense of our citizen's fourth amendment rights under the Constitution.
On the night of the incident, the driver of the car was pulled out, asked to perform FST's and then arrested for DUI. His blood alcohol level was above .15% BAC. He was charged with driving under the influence, his license was confiscated and he spent the night in jail. The Bakersfield DUI Lawyer challenged police report at a formal hearing in the Kern County Driver Safety Office of the California DMV. Evidence was presented that showed the lights on the car were on and counsel argued that the reason for the stop may have been motivated by a "hunch" alone that the driver was intoxicated because he was observed leaving the bar around 2 a.m.
At the conclusion of the case, the hearing Judge decided in favor of the licensee and ordered that his license be returned forthwith. This case underscores a little known problem that underlies the "war on DUI" in this country. While it is logical that all resources possible should be spent to deter and enforce the current DWI laws, it should not be done at the expense of our citizen's fourth amendment rights under the Constitution.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Torrance DUI Attorney Explains Possible Probation Terms
A person who is charged and later pleads guilty to a DUI in California can be ordered to comply with a variety of probationary terms that can dictate how they must live their life in the future. Among the many orders are the requirement that the defendant install an ignition interlock on all cars they own, as well as the real possibility that they serve a sentence of jail.
According to one Torrance DUI Attorney, the probation conditions can also include things such as the requirement that the individual attend classes or perform community service. The best way to avoid the mandatory punishments is to not be convicted of a driving under the influence or a lesser included offense such as a wet reckless. But, in those instances where a conviction seems imminent, the Court may impose the following consequences: That the person complete an AB541 program or SB38 DUI school if they have priors. That the driver not drive for a specific period of time or that the license be restricted for a length of time up to 3 years. The person cannot drive at any time with a measurable amount of alcohol in their system. They cannot drive after consuming any alcoholic beverage for at least 12 hours. The accused cannot frequent any bars or visit any place where alcohol is the chief item of sale. The driver cannot refuse to take a chemical test at the request of any peace officer. The defendant can be required to perform Caltrans or community labor. The individual must notify the Court of any change of address, pay restitution for damages caused to any property, pay any civil judgment arising out of any incident which occurred from the arrest of the DUI. The probationer must obey all laws and orders of the Court. Attend any AA meetings ordered. pay any fines imposed.
All conditions of probation for a DUI are sanctioned by the possibility of jail time if the person does not comply.
According to one Torrance DUI Attorney, the probation conditions can also include things such as the requirement that the individual attend classes or perform community service. The best way to avoid the mandatory punishments is to not be convicted of a driving under the influence or a lesser included offense such as a wet reckless. But, in those instances where a conviction seems imminent, the Court may impose the following consequences: That the person complete an AB541 program or SB38 DUI school if they have priors. That the driver not drive for a specific period of time or that the license be restricted for a length of time up to 3 years. The person cannot drive at any time with a measurable amount of alcohol in their system. They cannot drive after consuming any alcoholic beverage for at least 12 hours. The accused cannot frequent any bars or visit any place where alcohol is the chief item of sale. The driver cannot refuse to take a chemical test at the request of any peace officer. The defendant can be required to perform Caltrans or community labor. The individual must notify the Court of any change of address, pay restitution for damages caused to any property, pay any civil judgment arising out of any incident which occurred from the arrest of the DUI. The probationer must obey all laws and orders of the Court. Attend any AA meetings ordered. pay any fines imposed.
All conditions of probation for a DUI are sanctioned by the possibility of jail time if the person does not comply.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Santa Monica DUI Lawyer Discusses IID Issues
Under the current state of the law, anyone convicted of a DUI will be required to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles registered to the address in which they reside. Yes, that is correct, they must install an IID on all motor vehicles that share the same address that appear on their DMV report. What this means is that if you live at an apartment that is also rented by others who have vehicles that they have ;linked to that same address and you claim that you do not have a car, you must install an IID in those cars if you wish to maintain a California drivers license. Does this seem fair? According to one Santa Monica DUI Attorney it is not and the law should be changed to reflect the current social living arrangements that most people in Los Angeles County must endure.
Indeed, the purpose behind the law is crystal clear, we want those who have shown they cannot drive responsibly to have to install an ignition interlock to be able to prove they can drive without being drunk. But is it possible that the law goes too far? Many believe it does and seek to amend the statute. Will the citizens of California agree, that remains to be seen. In the mean time the Courts will uphold the will of the state and require the IID in all vehicles. This will make some persons illegal and the Santa Monica Criminal Lawyer will continue to argue that change must come too afford some semblance of justice. Meanwhile back at the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the administration will continue to press on and mandate the device. Time will tell whether the legislature will succumb to the will of those facing the obligatory installation. Stay tuned.
Indeed, the purpose behind the law is crystal clear, we want those who have shown they cannot drive responsibly to have to install an ignition interlock to be able to prove they can drive without being drunk. But is it possible that the law goes too far? Many believe it does and seek to amend the statute. Will the citizens of California agree, that remains to be seen. In the mean time the Courts will uphold the will of the state and require the IID in all vehicles. This will make some persons illegal and the Santa Monica Criminal Lawyer will continue to argue that change must come too afford some semblance of justice. Meanwhile back at the California Department of Motor Vehicles, the administration will continue to press on and mandate the device. Time will tell whether the legislature will succumb to the will of those facing the obligatory installation. Stay tuned.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Arrested For A DUI In California?
California DUI laws are complex but they can be used in your favor. The law allows only 10 days to demand a formal hearing to contest the DMV license suspension. Contact a California DUI Lawyer today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)