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 - Prolonged Detention Waiting for DUI Expert Cop
Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? My name is Paul Burglin and I am a San Francisco Bay area drunk driving attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. I am also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law".
In this series of blog postings I am going to discuss search and seizure issues related to drunk driving cases. However, the totality of search and seizure law is perhaps as voluminous and complicated as drunk driving (DUI) law.
Today's Post: DETENTION AND ARREST | Seizure of a Person | Prolonged Detention Waiting for DUI Expert Cop
Occasionally, the defendant will be detained without probable cause for an arrest while a special drunk driving expert is called to administer field sobriety tests. For instance, some sheriff's deputies routinely summon and await the arrival of a CHP officer for this purpose. If the delay until the expert arrives is too long, the extended detention without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.
New allegations threaten San Francisco DUI cases
More problems are surfacing with the San Francisco district attorney's office for not disclosing the background of a prosecution witness who testified in drunk driving cases.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a supervising toxicologist vouched for the reliability of alcohol detection equipment in blood test results in DUI cases for two years in a Washington State lab. She signed off on the cases even though she had not tested the equipment herself.
Hundreds of criminal convictions in San Francisco are already at risk because prosecutors withheld police officers' criminal histories or misconduct records from defense attorneys.
My position on this is that it underscores now more than ever that defense counsel is needed for San Francisco DUI cases, as the District Attorney is now fighting pressure to dismiss cases following exposure of the crime lab problems!
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Prolonged Detention
Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? My name is Paul Burglin and I am a San Francisco Bay area drunk driving attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. I am also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law".
In this series of blog postings I am going to discuss search and seizure issues related to drunk driving cases. However, the totality of search and seizure law is perhaps as voluminous and complicated as drunk driving (DUI) law.
DETENTION AND ARREST | Seizure of a Person | Prolonged Detention
In 1979, the California Supreme Court held that when a police officer has (a) stopped a motorist for a traffic violation for which the latter cannot be taken into custody and (b) has already detained the motorist for the time necessary to perform his functions arising from the alleged violation, he cannot thereafter lawfully detain him for an additional period of time solely for the purpose of conducting a warrant check. People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577.
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Detention vs. Consensual Contact
Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? My name is Paul Burglin and I am a San Francisco Bay area drunk driving attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities.
In this series of blog postings I am going to discuss search and seizure issues related to drunk driving cases. However, the totality of search and seizure law is perhaps as voluminous and complicated as drunk driving (DUI) law.
DETENTION AND ARREST | Seizure of a Person | Detention vs. Consensual Contact
In People v. Jones (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 519, the court summarized that the law related to a determination of whether or not any particular encounter between a person and cop is a detention versus a consensual contact. The court said:
Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, and asking him if he is willing to answer some questions. (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497.) A person has been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. (United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554; see also INS v. Delgado (1984) 466 U.S. 210, 215.) As the Supreme Court has noted, "The test is necessarily imprecise, because it is designed to assess the coercive effect of police conduct, taken as a whole, rather than to focus on particular details of that conduct in isolation. Moreover, what constitutes a restraint on liberty prompting a person to conclude that he is not free to ‘leave' will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs." (Michigan v. Chesternut (1988) 486 U.S. 567, 573.)
San Francisco DUI Lawyer - Arrest vs. Detention, & Constitutional Requirements
Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? My name is Paul Burglin and I am a San Francisco Bay area drunk driving attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. I am also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law".
In this series of blog postings I am going to discuss search and seizure issues related to drunk driving cases. However, the totality of search and seizure law is perhaps as voluminous and complicated as drunk driving (DUI) law.
DETENTION AND ARREST | Seizure of a Person | Arrest vs. Detention, and Constitutional Requirements
"The Fourth Amendment prohibits ‘unreasonable searches and seizures' by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest." United States v. Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266, 273, citing United States v. Cortez (1981) 449 U.S. 411, 417; Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 9.
Questions? Let's Get Started.
