Call Today for Your Free Consultation
415-729-7300
Call Today for Your Free Consultation
415-729-7300
Recent Blog Posts
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Blockbuster decision regarding blood draws
BLOCKBUSTER DECISION REGARDING WARRANTLESS BLOOD DRAWS IN DUI CASES
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a seminal decision this morning in Missouri v. McNeely ___ U.S. ___ (2103) - Docket No. 11-1425
The case presented the following issue on appeal:
“Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream?"
To put this in layman’s terms, the Court ruled upon whether police must normally obtain a search warrant before compelling a person arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence to submit to a needle injection for blood evidence.
Here is what the Court declared:
“We hold that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant."
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Case Law - Judicial Decision - People v. Mathson
The Affirmative Defense of Involuntary Intoxication Causing Unconsciousness - Case Law By Board Certified DUI Lawyer Paul Burglin
People v. Mathson
___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2012 WL 542716 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.)
An unanticipated reaction to medication, taken as prescribed, constitutes an “involuntary intoxication" defense in some jurisdictions. In California, a person who acts conscious is presumed conscious, but a defendant can overcome it by producing sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that he was unconscious when he acted during the commission of the alleged crime. People v. Hardy (1948) 33 Cal.2d 52. Involuntary intoxication that causes a state of unconsciousness is recognized. State v. Wilson (1967) 66 Cal.2d 749.
Suppose the individual knows, or should know based upon warning labels, medical advice, and/or past experience, that the use of Ambien might cause him to sleep-drive in an unconscious state. Does such knowledge negate an involuntary intoxication defense?
San Francisco DUI Attorney - Case Law - Judicial Decision - Chambers v. State
Recent Judicial Decisions - Case Law By Board Certified DUI Lawyer Paul Burglin
Chambers v. State
___ S.W.3d ___, 2012 Ark. 407, 2012 WL 5360966 (Ark.)
In this.108 /.105 breath-alcohol test case, defendant objected to the admission into evidence of certificates certifying that the Datamaster was properly certified and calibrated, on the basis that they constituted testimonial hearsay in violation of Melendez-Diaz .
Finding the subject certifications were not created for the purpose of providing evidence against any particular defendant, the Court held they were non-testimonial (citing Commonwealth v. Zeininger , 459 Mass. 775, 947 N.E.2d 1060).
“We agree with the Court of Appeals of Oregon, which concluded that such records `bear a more attenuated relationship to conviction: They support one fact (the accuracy of the machine) that, in turn, supports another fact that can establish guilt (blood alcohol level).’ State v. Bergin , [231 Or.App. 36] at 41, 217 P.3d 1087. Indeed, it appears that the Supreme Court has already acknowledged this attenuation, stating in Melendez-Diaz , supra at 2532 n. 1: Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion…we do not hold, and it is not the case, that anyone whose testimony may be relevant in establishing the chain of custody, authenticity of the sample, or accuracy of the testing device, must appear in person as part of the prosecution’s case…[D]ocuments prepared in the regular course of equipment maintenance may well qualify as nontestimonial records."
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Case Law - Judicial Decision - Jenkins v. State
Recent Judicial Decisions - Case Law By Board Certified DUI Attorney Paul Burglin
Jenkins v. State
___So.3d ___ (2012 WL 4711432 (Miss.)
Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for possessing less than two grams of cocaine. His conviction was affirmed even though the analyst who performed the test and identified the substance did not testify. She was on indefinite medical leave with stage-four cancer so her supervisor/technical reviewer testified instead.
The surrogate witness performed “procedural checks" by reviewing all of the data submitted and the conclusions contained in the analyst’s report. Based on this review, he reached his own conclusion that the substance was cocaine. The certified report was signed by both the analyst and the testifying supervisor.
The Court held that this satisfied the Confrontation Clause and was allowed by Bullcoming . The salient point was that the supervisor was actively involved in the report’s production and had intimate knowledge of the analyses even though he did not perform the test first hand.
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - DUI Judicial Decision Analysis
Recent DUI Judicial Decisions With Analysis By Board Certified DUI Attorney Paul Burglin
Calibration Records Held Admissible Over Confrontation Objections
People v. Lopez
55 Cal.4 th 569 (2012)
Seizing on Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Bullcoming (“machine-generated" data may be admissible), the California Supreme Court held that a lab report was properly admitted even though the analyst did not testify. It was a six-page report that included the following:
Page 1 - Chain of custody log sheet (showing the results of nine blood samples the analyst tested on the same date, including defendant’s)
Page 2 - Printout of the GC machine’s calibrations on the day of the test
Pages 3 and 6 - Quality control runs before and after the samples were tested
Pages 4 and 5 - Two computer-generated numerical results (.0906 and.0908)
The majority opinion described pages 2-6 of the documents as machine-generated data measuring calibrations, quality control, and the blood-alcohol concentration. Though the analyst had initialed page 1 and signed page 2, there was no statement by him on any of the pages. The testifying criminalist said he was a colleague of the analyst and had trained him, was intimately familiar with his procedures in testing blood for alcohol, and that everyone in the lab was trained in the same manner. Based on his own training, he said he concurred with the results. Cf., Bullcoming (no underlying data or chromatograms were offered at trial in Bullcoming , and no independent opinion was offered by the surrogate witness).
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Confrontation Cases
State v. Sorensen
___N.W.2d ___, 283 Neb. 932, 2012 WL 1889206 (Neb.) (May 25, 2012)
A nurse’s certificate that blood was drawn in a medically accepted manner, signed at the request of law enforcement in connection with Defendant’s DUI arrest, was “testimonial" within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause. It was in essence an “affidavit" and improperly admitted into evidence because the nurse was not subject to cross-examination.
San Francisco DUI Lawyer Case Law Updates
The following decision grants an IID-restricted license to a second offender who was on probation at the time for his first DUI conviction. The Petitioner's last name has been redacted to protect his privacy (we always protect client confidentiality). Until now, the DMV has been refusing to grant early IID-restricted licenses to said individuals. While this ruling only applies to the Petitioner, it may well cause the DMV to change its current policy. If not, feel free to contact Paul Burglin for legal assistance in getting your driving privilege restored.
San Francisco DUI Attorney Case Law Updates
The Legality Of The Police Stop Is Held Relevant To The "Lawful
Arrest" Issue Presented In License Suspension Hearings
Wisconsin v. Anagnos (2012)
Wisconsin Supreme Court (No. 2010 AP19812)
___ N.W.2d ___ (2012 WL 2378548)
Wisconsin’s refusal hearing statute allows a licensee to contest whether he was lawfully arrested. As part of this challenge, he may properly contend that the arrest was unlawful because the traffic stop that preceded it was not justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
This decision is good persuasive precedent for California lawyers handling DMV administrative per hearings.
San Francisco DUI Lawyer Blog
Blood Test Results May Be Excluded From Evidence
Though California law enforcement agencies have long engaged in the practice of demanding blood draws from DUI arrestees without a warrant - at times even forcibly taking the blood by strapping suspects in a chair or holding them down on the ground - that practice may soon be deemed unconstitutional.
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Missouri v. McNeely . The legal issue presented is “whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream?"
In layman terms, the question is whether such warrantless invasions of the body are allowed on the basis that alcohol, once absorbed and distributed in the body, begins to eliminate (i.e., “burn off").
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that law enforcement agencies may not do so where the opportunity exists for them to quickly apply for a warrant. Warrants may be obtained telephonically, so the delay is generally short if a magistrate is available and the police are not delayed by unusual circumstances.
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Voir Dire
Anderson v. State of Texas (May 16, 2012)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas – No. PD-1067-11
Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review, contending the Court of Appeals erred in holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow defense counsel to question the jury panel about its understanding of the differences between proof “beyond a reasonable doubt" and the lesser burdens of proof applicable in civil cases.
Held : Although trial courts have broad discretion over the process of selecting a jury and the propriety of particular questions, it is an abuse of discretion for it to prohibit proper questions about proper inquiries such as the standard of proof applicable in a criminal trial. The matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the harmless error doctrine precluded reversal of the conviction.
Burglin commentary : Since this appears to have been “constitutional error" (it having arguably violated the defendant’s right to trial under the Texas Constitution), the Court of Appeals must reverse the conviction unless it determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction or determination of punishment. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2.
Questions? Let's Get Started.
