Making the Case For Dashcams in Every Police Car

We see the stories every day, YouTube videos, and Internet videos gone viral, the visual impact that video has on a story cannot understated.  So why are there not videos cameras in every police car?  Many people believe that the Rodney King case would not have had the same result if a video was not taken of the incident.  Interestingly, it is that case that many think caused some agencies to not want video in the cars, but why not.  In one recent study it was determined that if a video is in a police cruiser the officer is more likely to be extra careful and honest in the police work they do.  In the King case, some of the officers involved were charged with filing false police reports do to the inconsistencies in what the video showed.  So, why not put videos in every patrol car?

The main argument advanced by the police departments opposed to the video equipped cars is the the cost involved.  In the study, the group found that the cost per car is minimal when compared to the savings a police agency will see in resolving baseless lawsuits and civil rights claims.  One expert suggested that the department can stagger the equipment so that some cars actually have working cameras and some will not, the officers will not know which cars have the video capability.  The expert argues that will save half the cost but have the same deterrent effect that would be obtained with 100 percent compliance.

In DUI cases the videos would save countless hours of unneeded testimony in Court, saving millions of dollars on an annual basis.  The video could resolve conflicts quickly between the accused making claims of abuse or misconduct and conversely the video could quickly and efficiently settle criminal trials once the tape shows the suspect is either guilty on not guilty of the charges.  So who is behind the opposition force in not equipping all cars with recording equipment, the Unions?  Is it true that police unions oppose cameras because they want the case to revolve around the officer's word, the statements in the police report that go unchallenged, the cop's word versus the criminal defendant's word?

According to one Bakersfield DUI Attorney who litigates criminal cases on a daily basis, the video in any given case causes the client to "come down to earth" quickly.  Once confronted with damning evidence of guilt, the client will typically want to settle the case without going to trial.  The memory of a defendant is often clouded and the video is a decisive factor in whether a case is plea bargained.  On the other hand, in some cases the video vindicates the defendant and can be used to persuade the District Attorney to dismiss charges in a case that otherwise may have led to an injustice.

In the final analysis, there can be no reasonable argument that a video in every criminal case is not a good idea.  The hard part is actually implementing a system that would make it happen, California needs to catch up to other states that have made it happen.

Do You Need TO Request A DMV Hearing if the DUI Involves Marijuana Only?

This question is one that has perplexed more people than any other.  Here is the scenario:  A driver is stopped and arrested for a DUI, he takes a breath test and there in no alcohol present, however the cop believes he is under the influence of a drug such as marijuana.  The person is booked and processed and released with a pending court date for driving under the influence.  The question then becomes:  Should the driver request a DMV hearing?

The answer depends, says Hermosa Beach DUI Attorney, if the driver did not receive an order of suspension and still has his license, calling the DMV may trigger and investigation for some other action, such as a medical issue or an addiction issue which could prompt a separate suspension.  However, if the driver was served an APS order incorrectly, then a quandary develops.  The quandary is that if the blood comes back with no alcohol then the APS should be set aside automatically when the DMV does a review of the case.  If no hearing is requested the APS could fall thru the cracks and a suspension could result

So, if the driver did not get a pink APS order, do nothing.  If the driver was incorrectly served then a hearing request may be prudent to protect the driving privilege and ensure that the DMV does the right thing and sets the action aside with no suspension.

Every year the drivers safety unit of the DMV gets well over a million hearing requests and they are backlogged, so be sure to follow up and demand that once the blood shows no alcohol present that the driver record be purged of the action.

At What Point Does A DUI Become a Felony in California?

With the recent case of the Nevada man charged with felony DUI, many folks ask: when does a DUI become a felony in the state of California?  There are a number of ways that a drunk driving charge can be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony.  First of all, most standard first time DWI offenses in the state are considered misdemeanors, VC 23152 of the state code specifies that all DUI charges are misdemeanors unless they meet certain criteria.

One way that a driving under the influence can be a felony is if someone other than the offender himself is injured.  According to one Manhattan Beach DUI Attorney, if a person sustains a substantial injury that is caused as a result of the DUI driver violating the vehicle code, such as speeding, failure to stop at a red light or other infraction, and the offender is determined to be under the influence of alcohol or a drug or both then the crime becomes a felony which carries a potential prison sentence of up to 3 years. 

Another way a DUI can be a felony is when the violator has been convicted of 3 or more DUI cases in the last 10 years prior to the last charge. More on this crime in a later post.

Does California Allow A Urine Test For A DUI?

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.

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.

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.

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.