Posted on October 03, 2013 in DUI

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision belows underscores why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.
MISSOURI V. MCNEELY

THIS U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION OVERRULES SEVERAL CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL CASES THAT ERRONEOUSLY HELD POLICE MAY FORCIBLY TAKE A BLOOD SAMPLE FROM A DUI SUSPECT WITHOUT A WARRANT BASED SOLELY ON A LAWFUL ARREST AND MEDICALLY APPROVED MANNER OF DRAWING BLOOD.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN AND HOW IS IT PLAYING OUT?

The Facts in McNeely : DUI suspect refused both breath and blood testing and was subjected to a forced blood draw at a hospital. The State did not argue that exigent circumstances existed which excused a warrant, and the arresting officer did not identify in his testimony any circumstances suggesting that he faced an emergency or unusual delay in trying to obtain a warrant. The blood-alcohol evidence was ordered suppressed by the trial court based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 19, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the State v. Newman case below, are binding legal precedents that California courts must follow in drunk driving cases. Out-of-state decisions from state appellate courts are not binding on California Courts, but they are often looked to as persuasive precedent by trial judges presiding over DUI motions to suppress evidence and trial.

This is why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.

State v. Newman , ___P.3d___ (2013 WL 2370589 (Or.) – Docket No. S060182

An element of proof for DUI conviction in Oregon is that the accused engaged in a volitional act that led to the driving. The trial court barred the defense from having an expert witness testify about “sleep driving" as part of a defense that defendant’s act of driving was not volitional.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 12, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the U.S. v. Tavera case below, are binding legal precedents that California courts must follow in drunk driving cases. Out-of-state decisions from state appellate courts are not binding on California Courts, but they are often looked to as persuasive precedent by trial judges presiding over DUI motions to suppress evidence and trial.

This is why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.

Defendant was a passenger in a truck transporting concealed methamphetamine. He denied having any knowledge of it but was convicted nevertheless. His conviction was vacated when it was discovered after trial that the co-defendant driver had told the prosecutor during plea negotiations that Defendant had no knowledge of the drug conspiracy.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 04, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the People v. Gaytan case below, are binding legal precedents that California courts must follow in drunk driving cases. Out-of-state decisions from state appellate courts are not binding on California Courts, but they are often looked to as persuasive precedent by trial judges presiding over DUI motions to suppress evidence and trial.

This is why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.

People v. Gaytan (IL - Court of Appeal, Dist. 4) May 13, 2013 – Docket No. 4–12–0217)

The IL statute at issue provides that the “registration plate shall at all times be free from any materials that would obstruct the visibility of the plate, including, but not limited to, glass covers and plastic covers."

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 26, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the State v. Reed case below, are binding legal precedents that California courts must follow in drunk driving cases. Out-of-state decisions from state appellate courts are not binding on California Courts, but they are often looked to as persuasive precedent by trial judges presiding over DUI motions to suppress evidence and trial.

This is why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.

State v. Reed

- S.W.3d - -, 2013 WL 2285129 (Mo.App. S.D.) – Docket No. SD 32465

The State appealed the trial court’s suppression of blood-alcohol test results by arguing that the following “totality of circumstances" presented an exigent circumstance that dispensed with a warrant requirement: “(1) the trooper had to complete a prior DWI investigation prior to turning his attention to Reed; (2) the trooper had to allow twenty minutes for Reed to attempt to contact an attorney before refusing to consent to the blood test; (3) the trooper had to transport Reed to the hospital (for the test); (4) the evanescent nature of blood alcohol concentration; and (5) the additional hour or two delay necessary to obtain a search warrant. The State frames the argument thusly: `Does a two hour and five minute delay caused by a prior driving while intoxicated investigation, the evanescent nature of blood alcohol concentration in a person's blood, and an additional hour or two hour delay necessary to obtain a search warrant create an exigent circumstance to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment?’"

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 12, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the Sauls v. State case below, are binding legal precedents that California courts must follow in drunk driving cases. Out-of-state decisions from state appellate courts are not binding on California Courts, but they are often looked to as persuasive precedent by trial judges presiding over DUI motions to suppress evidence and trial.

This is why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.

Sauls v. State , ___ S.E.2d __, 2013 WL 292146 (GA Supreme Court)

Trooper failed to admonish DUI suspect that his failure to submit to chemical testing could be used against him in Court. This was deemed a material omission from GA’s “Implied Consent" statute which requires a full reading of the requirement and consequences.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 30, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the Commonwealth v. Brown case below, are binding legal precedents that California courts must follow in drunk driving cases. Out-of-state decisions from state appellate courts are not binding on California Courts, but they are often looked to as persuasive precedent by trial judges presiding over DUI motions to suppress evidence and trial.

This is why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.

Commonwealth v. Brown (Mass. Appeals Court June 20, 2013 – Docket No. 12-P-614)

Defendant’s refusal to participate in (or complete) field sobriety testing may not be introduced by the State as evidence of guilt. Admission would place the accused in a Catch-22 situation - participate in the FST’s and furnish incriminating evidence, or refuse and produce “consciousness of guilt" evidence.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 23, 2013 in DUI

Some interesting cases relating to common California DUI defense issues have been published in the past few months. Some, such as the Salinas case below, are binding legal precedents that California courts must follow in drunk driving cases. Out-of-state decisions from state appellate courts are not binding on California Courts, but they are often looked to as persuasive precedent by trial judges presiding over DUI motions to suppress evidence and trial.

This is why it is important to have a Board-Certified DUI defense attorney in your corner who keeps abreast of these decisions, as they may impact your case.

Salinas v. Texas

570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 928 (2013) – Docket No. 12-246

Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420 (1984) held that a motorist’s pre-arrest, pre-Miranda roadside statements are admissible at trial. Salinas v. Texas (Docket 12-246) just empowered prosecutors to introduce silence by DUI suspects in response to roadside questioning as evidence of guilt, unless the suspect expressly invokes the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 20, 2013 in DUI

Expired Tube and “Vigorous Shaking" Leads To Exclusion of BAC Result
Hunter v. State
___ A.3d ___, 2012 WL 5349395 (Del.Supr.)

Sometimes a leading question can backfire, and sometimes the best objection is the one you don’t make.

Q: Okay. So she shook it vigorously just to make sure everything was mixed up properly, right?

A: Yes.

On cross, the defense attorney had the witness read the manufacturer’s admonition on the collection kit, “Do not shake vigorously."

The prosecutor’s helpful witness also said the expired date on the tube did not affect the sample’s integrity, only to be asked on cross to read the admonition that states, “Do not use tubes after the expiration date."

This was an ugly-fact case with the suspected drunk driver seriously injuring an EMT with a vicious kick, and a forced blood draw that involved the use of a taser. Yet the Court reversed the DUI conviction for failure to properly exclude the blood test evidence as foundationally unreliable.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 14, 2013 in DUI

Nurse Gets Arrested For Refusing Blood Draw Order
Depalis-Lachaud v. Noel
U.S. Court of Appeals (11 ^th Cir. 2013) – No. 12-12903 (Unpublished)

A deputy sheriff transported a suspected drunk driver to the hospital following an accident, and directed a registered nurse to draw blood for evidentiary purposes. The nurse declined to do so without at least talking to a superior or on-duty doctor, and was arrested by the deputy for allegedly violating Florida statutes 843.02 (resisting or obstructing an officer in the execution of any legal duty) and 843.06 (neglecting or refusing an officer in the execution of his office in a criminal case).

The nurse brought a 1983 civil rights action against the deputy sheriff, and in reversing an order for summary judgment against the deputy, the Court held that “a reasonable officer could believe that [the nurse] obstructed, resisted, or opposed [the deputy’s] efforts to obtain the blood sample in violation of [the foregoing statutes]. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s denial of the deputy’s motion for summary judgment, thus leaving him potentially liable.

Continue Reading ››