Li Sheng Jie Chi Xin Jue Dui Lyrics
 |
No items matching your keywords were found.
Dui Breathalyzer Refusal
|
No items matching your keywords were found.
Seattle DUI Breathalyzer And Field Sobriety Tests
Understanding the aspects of Seattle DUI can be complicated, especially if you've been charged with DUI for the first time. It's important to understand the aspects of driving under the influence before you see the blue lights in your rear view mirror so you know your rights and you know exactly what to do in this situation to protect your future. This article looks at two of the most frequently asked questions about DUI Seattle breathalyzer and field sobriety tests.
Should I Submit To Field Sobriety Tests?
Just about any Seattle DUI lawyer out there will tell you never to submit to field sobriety tests. Why? Field sobriety tests are unreliable and cannot prove or disprove intoxication, and submitting to a field sobriety test gives an officer evidence to use against you. You are within your rights to calmly and politely refuse a field sobriety test.
Keep in mind that many factors play a role in passing or failing a field sobriety test. First of all, the officer uses his or her own judgment when determining whether you pass or fail, making the results unreliable to begin with. Secondly, even 100% sober people can have a problem passing a field sobriety test depending on their physical abilities. Even things like the clothes you're wearing, the shoes you're wearing, the weather conditions, the time of day, available light, the surface you're on, the other cars whizzing by, and more can all negatively affect your ability to pass a field sobriety test, even when you're a 100% healthy, capable, sober person.
Remember that the law does not force you into submitting to a field sobriety test. These tests are voluntary. The officer may still arrest you after politely refusing a field sobriety test, but you'll be better off in the long run. If you are arrested, keep quiet and contact a Seattle DUI attorney immediately.
Should I Submit To A Breathalyzer Test?
Just as with a field sobriety test, by submitting to a breathalyzer test you really only accomplish giving the officer evidence to use against you. Besides, while a breathalyzer test can provide an indication of the level of alcohol in your system, it can't prove impairment. Every person's system handles alcohol differently. Some people are severely impaired when blowing a breathalyzer result higher than .08 and other people aren't impaired at all at .08.
Breathalyzer tests only work to provide a level of alcohol in your system. This test will not work for measuring levels for drug related DUIs. The results can also provide an inaccurate picture of your particular situation depending on the time you take the test, so politely refusing is usually best. Other factors can affect the result of a breathalyzer test as well since it's a sensitive piece of equipment, including the maintenance performed to keep it in top working order, correct calibration, and even the qualifications and experience of the officer administering the test.
If you're ever pulled over for DUI Seattle, keep the above in mind. While many people go ahead and submit to these tests, it's usually best to politely refuse them, especially field sobriety tests.
About the Author
For more information, contact and visit Garvey Law Offices today.
California Dui Checkpoints
|
No items matching your keywords were found.
Four-Headed DUI Monster Stunned by Latest Round of Decisions pursued by California DUI Attorneys
If arrested for a DUI, you know the odds are stacked up against you as these are very difficult cases for a citizen's lawyer to prevail on.
In recent years, the trend has been for the legislature and the courts to take tough stands on Drunk Driving. The lengths at which MADD will go knows no boundaries. Rights of the accused have been diminished. In some cases, attorneys' defenses have been entirely taken away.
Until now.
The Four-Headed DUI Monster "PPDJ" has taken a few hits this year.
By way of background, PPDJ's 4 heads are the:
1) Police
2) Prosecutor
3) DMV
4) Judge
A DUI arrest means the person was first arrested by the Police, charged with DUI by the Prosecutor, suspended by the DMV and presided over - and often sentenced by - the Judge.
This usually means one DUI criminal defense lawyer deals with all 4 heads at one time or another. The few setbacks of the monster included two victories by premier San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys.
A) The first - Lack of Accuracy / Margin of Error - case held:
Motorist prevails at DMV hearing when there is evidence that blood alcohol concentration (BAC) testing device was producing readings .002 percent higher than a calibrated sample rebutted the prima facie showing by Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that motorist's blood-alcohol level was .08 percent or higher based on two identical readings of .08 percent and the presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed, thus shifting the burden back to DMV, even though a test result reported as .08 percent could actually represent a BAC anywhere between .080 and .089 percent.
Nothing in the regulatory scheme requiring forensic testing agencies to ensure their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) testing instruments meet a minimum level of accuracy precludes a driver from introducing evidence that the instrument used to test his or her BAC deviated by some measure less than .01 percent of the true value, or precludes a trial court from considering such a deviation in determining whether an administrative license suspension is supported by sufficient evidence. 17 CCR § 1221.4(a)(2). The regulation requiring blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test results to be reported only to the second decimal place does not preclude a driver from offering evidence that a testing device deviated by hundredths of a percentage, in challenging an administrative license suspension. 17 CCR § 1220.4.
[Brenner v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 189 Cal.App.4th 365, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,284, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,015 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Oct 18, 2010) (NO. A126745), review denied (Feb 02, 2011)]
B) The second - California DUI Checkpoint - case held:
The Prosecuting attorney did not sustained the state's burden of proof in establishing the California DUI checkpoint factors under Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321 as to at least (i) the role of supervisory personnel in prescribing the procedures to be used at the checkpoint, (ii) the rationale for selecting the particular location used for the checkpoint, (iii) the length of detentions, and (iv) advance publicity. Also noted was (v) the thin evidence of neutral criteria used when fewer than five cars were pulled over at a time.
[People v. Walter Alvarado, Filed 2/7/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION from the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. 6591, Superior Court No. 2404632]
C) The third - DMV procedural - case held:
The driver's due process rights were violated by San Diego DMV's Hearing Officer Jacqueline Denney because he was deprived of the opportunity to present a meaningful defense to the DMV's proceeding to suspend his driving privilege.
Petrus's DUI/DMV attorney received the blood test results only minutes before the commencement of the hearing at the beginning of which he objected to receiving discovery on the day of the hearing. The blood test showed a purported BAC of .18%. The hearing officer asked the DUI lawyer if he was ready to proceed and he said yes. The hearing officer then identified the exhibits she intended to introduce into evidence and asked if the driver objected. The DUI lawyer objected to the blood test report on the basis of discovery rules violation. The hearing officer overruled the objection and admitted the report into evidence. The DUI attorney then asked for a continuance, which was denied because counsel made no offer of proof as to why additional time and a continuance was necessary.
No offer of proof was needed as the court overturned the suspension. Due process requires full and fair administrative hearings that provide drivers a " ‘meaningful opportunity to present their case.' " Government Code section 11513 (b) states that each party has the right to rebut the evidence against him or her. Petrus had sufficient time to review the number indicating the blood alcohol content, but not an opportunity to rebut that evidence.
The court noted that in Glatman v. Valverde, the appellate court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the forensic report was not prepared "at or near the time of the recorded event" because the record contained no support for the assertion that the analysts promptly entered the test results into the computer database, thus the suspension was set aside. [forensic report dated a week after the arrest].) Assuming arguendo Petrus had the opportunity to rebut, he is only required to present evidence that official standards were not observed similar to the licensee in Glatman, not the "marshalling of complex scientific evidence" to possibly set aside his license suspension.
[Edmond Petrus v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, No. D057523. San Diego Super.Ct.No. 37–2009–00101417–CU–WM–CTL, April 7, 2011.]
In sum, now with Brenner, Alvarado and Petrus, the Four-Headed Prosecutorial DUI Monster can be better kept in check.
About the Author
DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only San Diego DUI lawyer who was the featured Speaker at 7 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last several years. Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru".
Top Gun Dui Defense
|
No items matching your keywords were found.
Colorado State Patrol Trooper Ivan Lawyer in need of Denver Criminal Defense Lawyer!
If you or a loved one have been accused or charged with a Colorado criminal offense and are in need of a Denver criminal defense lawyer, contact Colorado's most trusted criminal defense law firm.
The Denver Post reports that a Mesa County Colorado grand jury has indicted two Colorado State patrol troopers on criminal charges of criminal trespass and criminal mischief. One of the troopers, Ivan Lawyer, was indicted on additional charges of criminally negligent homicide, second degree assault, illegal discharge of a firearm, and prohibited use of a weapon. The second degree assault charge against Trooper Lawyer is a class 4 felony that carries a mandatory 5-16 years in the Colorado Department of Corrections if he is convicted due to the charge's classification as a "crime of violence" under Colorado law. Both, Trooper Lawyer and the other Colorado State Patrol trooper, Kirk Firko, are on unpaid administrative leave pending resolution of the criminal charges against them in a Grand Junction, Colorado District Court.
The criminal charges against Troopers Lawyer and Firko result from a shooting that happened after they responded to an accident on July 20, 2010 in Grand Junction, Colorado. The 911 emergency caller reporting the accident reported that a pickup truck had crashed into the yard of a residential home and three intoxicated men were trying to leave the scene. When Troopers Lawyer and Firko arrived to the address reported in the emergency call, the pickup truck was parked a short distance away. The three intoxicated individuals who had been reported to be present by the 911 caller were not in or around the vehicle. Trooper Lawyer determined that it was necessary to find these individuals quickly so that criminal evidence of their blood alcohol content could be obtained. Lawyer determined that such evidence would be necessary to charge the driver of the vehicle with the criminal offense of DUI. Without such evidence, prosecution would be very difficult if a seasoned Denver criminal defense lawyer were retained by the driver. Trooper Lawyer and Firko knocked on the door of the residence and Trooper Lawyer looked through the window. Lawyer saw a man who matched the description of one of the three men given by the 911 caller. The man in the home, Jason Kemp, told Trooper Lawyer that he could not enter without a search warrant. Trooper Firko attempted to arrest two men as they were escaping out the back door of the home. As this was occurring, Trooper Lawyer attempted to break open the front door. Trooper Lawyer was afraid that Kemp had had enough time to obtain a weapon. Trooper Lawyer claims that he was afraid for his safety at that time. Trooper Lawyer kicked in the door with his gun drawn. Lawyer claims to have seen Kemp in the darkness with his arm raised as if pointing a weapon. Trooper Lawyer next claims to have seen a flash and thought that he had been shot. Lawyer then realized that he had actually shot Kemp. The wound killed Kemp despite Trooper Lawyer's CPR efforts. As it turns out, Kemp was not armed with a weapon.
About the Author
Mr. Jamison writes and blogs on behalf of the Denver, Colorado based criminal defense and personal injury law firm of Frankfurt & Trani, P.C.
Denver Criminal Defense Lawyers
Denver Murder & Criminal Homicide Criminal Defense Attorneys
Illinois Dui Laws And Penalties
|
No items matching your keywords were found.