Los Angeles DUI Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in DUI

|

A driving under the influence conviction not only affects a person’s criminal record, but also their driving record and auto insurance. Exactly how it affects each person’s auto insurance policy will differ from person to person, and from company to company.

When a person is convicted of a DUI, the DMV is automatically notified. Along with scheduled court dates to determine the outcome of the criminal case, the DMV will hold a hearing to determine the status of the person’s driving privileges. Once the sentence is determined, a person’s auto insurance company is allowed to access any information they need regarding the conviction. Upon their research, the auto insurance company will make a determination regarding the status of the person’s insurance policy.

Insurance policies are affected in different ways. For some people the premium will increase significantly, whereas other policies will be cancelled until further notice. The approach taken by an insurance company depends on several factors; the past driving record of the individual, the criminal record of the driver, as well as the age. After taking into consideration all factors as a whole, the company will make a determination.

Continue reading ›

|

Many of our clients proclaim that the officer had no reason to stop them while driving and administer a field sobriety test. The reason may be any number of things, but our clients hold that those are false allegations. If there is no actual probable cause for an officer to pull someone over, then they cannot charge you with a DUI. Some common causes that officers cite for pulling a person over include: weaving in and out of lanes, broken taillight, not indicating before turning, and not staying within the lanes. If a person is stopped for doing any of the aforementioned violations, plus any others, an officer has a right to stop the person and ask the person to complete some field sobriety tests if they feel it may be necessary.

In the absence of any valid reason to stop a person, the officer has no right to do so. The police report will list the reason the person was initially stopped. When a person claims that there was never a reason to stop them, it is the officer’s word against our client’s, which brings up the issue of credibility. Generally the officer is taken to be accurate in his report, and his or her word is to be taken as truth. The person charged however, does not have as much credibility for many reasons, including the assumption that they were intoxicated at the time of the report.

When a person claims that there is no probable cause, it can often be difficult to prove. For example, say a person is stopped by an officer because they were weaving in and out of lanes. The officer stops the person, and notices symptoms of intoxication and administers a field sobriety test. The person is found to have a relatively high BAC and is taken into the station and charged with a DUI. Later on the person hires a Los Angeles DUI attorney and claims they were not weaving in and out of lanes, and therefore the officer had no right to stop them.

Continue reading ›

|

Many of our clients are suspected for a DUI even when they are in a vehicle that is pulled over or not being driven. If the government cannot prove that a person was driving the car under the influence of alcohol, the case may be dismissed.

A crucial element that must be present in any DUI case is the fact that the person charged was in fact driving the vehicle. This must be proven without a reasonable doubt before anyone can be convicted and sentenced for a DUI in Los Angeles. When a person is found in a vehicle that is parked, prosecution relies on surrounding circumstances and facts to prove that the person was in fact driving.

Several different facts will be taken into account. One of the things they will consider is where was the car parked? Was it in the parking lot of the venue, was it on the side of the freeway, was it in front of a friend’s house? If the car is at the venue, or at a friend’s house and hasn’t moved, there is a stronger argument that the driver had not driven the car anywhere. In comparison, if the car is on the side of the freeway, the government has a strong argument that the person drove the car there, and then decided to pull over.

Continue reading ›

|

When a person is charged with a DUI, the government makes their case using all evidence gathered during the arrest. This evidence will include the officer’s report and observations as well as the reading from any blood or breath test taken. These two pieces of evidence will make the bulk of prosecution’s case against a person, therefore if either account is inaccurate; it is in the best interest of the defense to argue its validity.

The accuracy of a breath test can be argued by demonstrating that the machine has not been properly calibrated, or it is running insufficiently. This is done by subpoenaing the maintenance records and reviewing them. If the machine has been used for a long time without having been checked for accuracy, there may be a weakness in prosecution’s case.

The reliability of blood test results may also be argued. This is done by questioning the lab that has done the testing. The lab may have contaminated the sample, may be biased, or may have even tested the sample inaccurately. To obtain a valid, accurate sample, the person charged with the DUI has the right to have the blood sample tested by an independent lab. They also have a right to go to their own doctor and have their blood tested. However, this does weakens the strength of the blood sample as evidence because many hours have passed since the original arrest. Consequently, the sample will not reflect an accurate reading of the Blood Alcohol Level.

Continue reading ›

|

California law requires drivers as a condition of issuing them a license to submit to a chemical test if requested by a police officer when one has been stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Drivers have a choice to submit to a breath sample or blood sample to determine the alcohol content, if any, in their bloodstream.

This is implied consent law makes it a separate aggravating circumstance to a drunk driving case, if the driver either refuses or fails to complete one of these two tests. The law requires not only that the driver suspected submit to a test, but requires completion of a test culminating in a result. One’s effort, for example by blowing into a breathalyzer machine is not sufficient unless a result is obtained. If a driver will not, or cannot complete the test chosen, then they must submit to the remaining text.

Should a suspected driver failed to submit to and complete a blood alcohol test to determine the alcohol content, or drug presence, they will be also charged with a refusal. This enhancement, can not only result in mandatory jail time, but subjects the driver to greatly enhance license suspension. For example, a driver who has been arrested for a DUI takes a breath test with a result of .24. This driver should only receive a one-month suspension of their driving privilege as long as they enroll in an appropriate alcohol program.

Continue reading ›

|

It is the officer’s job to gather evidence for a DUI case from the moment a person is stopped on the suspicion of being under the influence. They administer Blood Alcohol screening tests and prepare a report outlining observations that led to the belief of intoxication. The blood or breath test is entered into evidence, as is the officer’s report. The officer’s report is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence means that it is evidence gathered through observation, questioning and the general educated analysis of the officer. It is evidence, that when combined together, leads to a conclusion.

Officer’s write many reports a day, and tend to overlap a lot of information. An experienced California DUI attorney reads thousands of reports and can explain to a client the terms that are routinely included in all driving under the influence reports, and discuss if they pertain if at all to the specific case.

Certain boilerplate terms such as, red watery eyes, slurred speech, smell of alcohol emanating from the driver and the car, fumbling or having trouble presenting license are included in all police reports. These terms are a stereotype of drivers who are impaired and are included in every police report to strengthen the government’s case against a person.

Continue reading ›

|

When the Officer’s report is presented as evidence in court, it is generally weighed with greater credibility than that of the driver in a DUI case. There are several different factors that lead the Judge and Prosecution to believe that the officer’s account of the arrest holds higher validity than that of the driver.

1. General notion that the driver is intoxicated

The driver has consumed alcohol and is presumed to have been intoxicated, otherwise there wouldn’t be a DUI charge. When a person has been drinking they are said to not have full use of all senses. They may perceive things slowly, not be able to respond quickly, as well as have blurred vision. These effects of drinking create the perception that the driver was not in a state of complete awareness, and therefore may have a misconceived notion of the facts.

Continue reading ›

|

Many of our clients inform us that the police did not read them their Miranda Rights when stopped for a DUI. Unfortunately, when stopped on the suspicion of a DUI, the arresting officer is not required to read you your rights. This procedure is only specific to DUI cases, and does not apply to other criminal arrests.

Miranda rights only apply to criminal cases and should be given when a person is submitted to custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation is when you are taken into mandatory custody, and are interrogated by officers. If you are voluntarily there, and are choosing to answer any questions officers have, Miranda Rights do not have to be read.

For example, let’s say you go into a police station to talk to Officers about something you have seen.sThe officers ask you to answer a few questions in the waiting area and you agree. Even if later you are accused of being a suspect in the crime, the questions you answered may be used as evidence. Miranda Rights were not necessary because there was no custodial interrogation. You were not taken into custody against your will, and you were not questioned by officers while in custody. When officers ask you questions that you voluntarily answer, it is considered to be investigative. Officers have a duty to gather facts and investigate, and when they ask you questions to learn information, it is considered to be investigative, not an interrogation.

Continue reading ›

|

When many of our clients are arrested for a DUI, they are not given a specific reason for being stopped. When a cop pulls you over, he must have a valid reason for doing so. Furthermore, if an alcohol screening test is administered, he must have probable cause.

When a cop initially indicates that you pull over, he must have a valid reason. This reason can be as simple as a broken taillight, or something as serious as swerving in and out of lanes. An officer cannot make assumptions that you may be intoxicated and they cannot pull you over if there is no reason for them to do so. For example, if you are driving and you run a red light, the officer has a reason to stop you. Similarly, if you do not signal, or make an illegal U-turn, the officer has a valid reason to pull you over.

Once the officer pulls you over, he may ask you to complete a preliminary alcohol screening test only if he has reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is facts or circumstances that lead the officer to believe that you may under the influence. For example, if you are slurring, the officer has reasonable suspicion to question you regarding your impairment. If you exhibit no behavior that could indicate intoxication, the officer does not have the authority to ask you to take an alcohol screening test.

Continue reading ›

|

California Vehicle Code §23152(a) regulates Driving under the Influence of drugs (DUID). This same section also makes it unlawful to be driving under the influence of alcohol. Despite being charged under the same section, both types of cases invoke different arguments and defenses.

Someone is considered to be intoxicated for purposes of a DUI if their Blood Alcohol Level is .08% of higher. This is a objective test and a reading is obtained through the use of simple blood, breath and urine tests. In contrast, there is no objective test for a DUID.

When stopped under the suspicion of a DUID an officer will check for several different subjective signs to include in their report and support their allegation that a person was under the influence of drugs. They will observe your general behavior, and check your pulse and heart rate.

Continue reading ›