DUI Defender

Earlier this week a three judge panel finally concluded the drama in King County regarding the Washington State Patrol’s Toxicology Laboratory and oversight of breath testing program. The 29 page indictment found that many of the safeguards employed in proper laboratory protocols were not followed and in fact ignored by the Lab Manager, Anne Marie Gordon.

The panel found that Ms. Gordon authenticated test solutions that were prepared by other laboratory personnel without independent validation. The laboratory protocols called for calibration/accuracy testing solutions to be prepared and independently tested by the lab personnel. The importance of these solutions rests in that the entire breath testing program relies on the accuracy of the solutions to validate the measurements taken by breath testing equipment. The solutions are heated and the vapor is used to simulate human breath, that vapor is measured by the breath testing equipment and the result is compared to the “known” value. Of course, the problem arises when the “known” value isn’t actually “known” and the machines are calibrated to the unknown value. Without knowing what the machine is actually measuring it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the accused citizen’s breath test.

The panel found that other procedures were employed by the lab that resulted in a “culture of compromise.”

A couple of weeks ago, Matt Roloff, one of stars of the television show, Little People Big World went to trial on charges that he drove his car while he was under the influence of alcohol and failed to maintain his lane. He was arrested in 2006 however it took until earlier this month for his case to actually go to trial. He stated that he was driving his wife’s car that was outfitted with pedals custom fit for her, therefore her car couldn’t accomdate his stature, the arresting officer indicated that he could detect a moderate odor of alcohol and Mr. Roloff declined to provide a chemical test.

While the Jury was deliberating, one of the jurors searched the internet for additional information, this is forbidden as a Jury may only properly consider evidence and argument provided during the trial. Instead of requesting a mistrial for juror misconduct, Mr. Roloff’s attorney waived the jury and requested the Judge to make a decision based on the evidence, that decision was “not guilty.”

In New Hampshire, the night before the primary election, Sidney Blumenthal was arrested for suspicion of DUI with a high speed allegation. The Officer alleged that Blumenthal was driving 70 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. Further, the Officer alleges that he saw Blumenthal stop at an intersection. Hmm, nothing illegal about that, additionally the Officer saw Blumenthal “drifting in his lane,” which in many jurisdictions isn’t illegal, leaving the lane is required.

The simple fact here is that Blumenthal has been tried and convicted in court of public opinion before having the benefit of his day in court. Too frequently the media writes what law enforcement states and leaves the citizen to twist in the wind while their attorney is left to fight the charges in the media and the courthouse. While the Officer’s were convinced of his intoxication there was no reference to a specific blood alcohol concentration nor whether his failure to be tested was a crime in and of itself.

Earlier this week the Sacramento County Sheriff began a four day amnesty program for persons with out standing DUI arrest warrants. This amnesty period will run from November 13 through the 16. Following the conclusion of the amnesty period the Sheriff will initiate a sweep to arrest those with outstanding DUI arrest warrants at their homes or place of employment. Any person wishing to turn themselves in may do so at the Sheriff’s Administration Building at 711 G Street, Sacramento. The Warrant Counter is open Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Individuals eligible to receive a court date will be processed at the Warrant Counter without being booked into jail.

The Department of Justice in Watsonville revealed that two separate times in 2006 their breath testing program was flawed, so seriously that the 355 DUI cases affected may be dismissed. The issue arose because the Lab failed the proficiency testing conducted by the State Department of Health Services, while the District Attorney and Crime Lab down played the effect the failed proficiency tests had on the cases involved, the simple fact remained that the machines were not functioning properly, the results are tainted and the prosecutions should be dropped. If we can’t have faith in our prosecutor’s to do the right thing and protect the public from flawed chemical testing, who can we trust.

As I wrote earier, the source code battle has expanded beyond Florida and New Jersey, in Minnesota prosecutor’s and CMI missed the deadline to provide the defense with the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN. The court may dismiss the “per se” charge as a result of the failure.

The source code is the software that underlies the basic operation of the breath testing device. It essentially determines how the measurement is converted into blood alcohol concentration measurements used in criminal prosecutions. The reason why the code is important is that the software averages the readings taken during the sample to create a number, many scientists think that the breath alcohol measurement will vary dramatically depending upon where in the breath sample the measurement is taken. This variance could result in an overstatement of the blood alcohol measurement. The software also converts the breath alcohol measurement into a blood alcohol measurement. Many manufacturer’s of breath alcohol testing equipment have used the “proprietary” software defense, however, it seems to be failing in some court’s.

The “per se” charge as discussed above is a secondary charge that most persons arrested for DUI face, it states that you were DUI because your blood alcohol concentration was .08 or above. The so-called legal limit is now in effect in all 50 states since the award of federal highway funds was tied to legistlature’s enacting the limit. The importance of the “per se” charge should not be underestimated as it provides the prosecution with an alternative theory when a person is stopped for an equipment violation and performs well on field tests and has few if any of the “objective symptoms of intoxication.” (Odor of an alcoholic beverage, thick or slurred speech, red/watery eyes, unsteady gait, etc.).

Two men in Wisconsin were picked up for drunk driving, normally not a big story, but in this case they were both driving… the same car. One of the men admitted that he was too drunk to drive the car so he had his friend operate the gas and brake, the catch, the driver didn’t have any legs, his defense was that he couldn’t be the driver because he couldn’t operate the pedals. A third passenger, also drunk, walked home from the scene.

In New Jersey, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court has upheld the conviction of a man arrested for DUI despite the fact that he did not have any pharmacologically active substance in his system. Essentially, the man was prosecuted for driving while hungover. While he may be prosecuted for speeding, weaving or other vehicle code violation, he was definitely not driving under the influence. This leads to other scenarios where person “under the influence” may be arrested and taken for testing. If a person was woozy from Claritin, would they be prosecuted for DUI? What if a police officer mearly suspected a person was recovering from drug use, would he have the legal right to place them under arrest for DUI and demand a chemical test? Where will it end?

This is the very issue that the State of Washington finds itself determining. In 2001 an accident occurred killing several people. The State has alleged that the blood alcohol concentration of the driver causing the accident was .12, however, the blood sample has been destroyed. This cuts to the very core of our legal system, the right of the accused to confront the evidence against them, be it a person who witnessed a crime or some other physical evidence. The State must determine whether the blood alcohol concentration is admissible despite the fact that it was never confirmed by an independent laboratory and is no destroyed. The fact of the matter is that it is irrelevant that the destruction occurred inadvertently, the fact is that the defense has been denied the right to evaluate and confirm (or contradict) the evidence. Whether or not the accused was .12 or not, the evidence must be excluded from the case, it is a fundamental right of the accused to confront the evidence against him/her, this right is denied by the actions of the State of Washington and should not benefit in its prosecution for its conduct.

It suprised many observers that Paris Hilton was remanded into custody earlier today. The simple fact of the matter is she is being treated differently because of her celebrity. Most cases that I have handled that involve driving on a suspended license for an alcohol related offense (California Vehicle Code 14601.2) do not end up in jail, in fact, most appear with a driver’s license and have their cases reduced to either a misdemeanor or infraction “driving without a license.” (CVC 12500). In the rare case, when the defendant has a series of these types of offenses “priors” (more than 2) the person is looking is looking at time in custody.

The Judge ordered Paris into the overcrowded Los Angeles County Jail system. The reality is, in Los Angeles County, no one does all the time to which they are sentenced. The Sheriff must make decisions everyday regarding housing, sometimes he must release lesser criminals to provide housing to more serious criminals. Who will be released so that Paris Hilton will remain in jail? The sad fact is that because of the Judge’s decision today, the Sheriff will lose a cell into which one (or more) more dangerous person(s) could be put, because Paris needs a lesson.

Ahhhh, but now I digress, the reason that this situation is so offensive is that if Paris and her representatives had hired competant DUI counsel she might not be in jail. While I am not intimate with the facts of her case, in fact I know only that her blood alcohol concentration was .08 (right at the legal limt), I strongly believe that if the State had been forced to prove their case, she would not have an alcohol related offense on her record. I think that, regardless of public opinion of her (both good and bad) she would have either been acquitted of the DUI charge after trial, or the prosecutor would have reduced the case to a non-alcohol related offense. Her counsel (legal and/or otherwise) failed her and set her up for the soap opera that her life has become. And, if her defense attorney explained to her the choices, and Paris chose to “plead out” then she shouldn’t be singled out for preferential punishment, she should have been sentenced like others for similar offenses, she should do whatever time is the average for a forty five day sentence and allowed to move on with her life.

While not all of us have the resources to fight a case like Paris Hilton could have, we all can take a lesson and consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable in the area of law that is important to our legal problem, find out what our possible defense are and what are the possible outcomes. A lawyer that regularly practices in the field should be able to tell you what the pros and cons of your case are, without costing you a penny. Consult a lawyer, get informed.