While both the California DUI Lawyers Association and the ACLU spoke against passage of the bill it moved from the Public Safety Committee to the Assembly Appropriations Committe on a 5-2 vote.

This bill, seems to serve a noble purpose, removing from the roadways persons who seemingly can’t exercise good judgment when they drink alcohol. However, like most legislation in the DUI arena, it makes for great headlines and publicity for the elected official but it doesn’t serve justice and certainly doesn’t accomplish the goal which is to reduce the number of drivers under the influence.

This bill does not limit the “look back” period as state law does (10 years) and would permit a Judge to permanently revoke a person’s license upon conviction of a third offense even if the two prior convictions were many years in the past and/or separated by many years.

What about juvenile DUI’s, do these lapses in judgment or “youthful indiscretions” count? What if the person was under 21 but was a .1? Does this count? Can’t the law provide for a more compassionate punishment for the mistakes of persons who are convicted of DUI? Maybe a longer period with an ignition interlock device, maybe take into consideration the fact that upon conviction the defendant is sentenced to a minimum of 120 days of jail, often times it is the first time a person convicted of DUI actually does any “real” jail time.

It also ignores that alcohol is the number one “self prescribed” medication, several times a person will turn to alcohol to deal with the death of a parent, divorce or other emotional situation. During the grieving period they may turn to alcohol to help “cope” such behavior can result in multiple DUI’s during a very short period, should these otherwise law abiding citizens lose their licenses for life? Take away their livelihood at the very time when they need support in their delicate emotional state?

Providing impetus for the bill was a headline grabbing story regarding two drivers who racked up more than two dozen DUI convictions between them. Unfortunately, the back story is that only 310,000 drivers in California have 3 DUI convictions a relatively small percentage of the more than 22.5 million licensed drivers (<a href="http://www.statemaster.com/graph/trn_lic_dri_tot_num-transportation-licensed-drivers-total-number"). Further, it assumes the worst in people, nearly every adiction clinic advises it's participants that sobriety is a daily task, that mishaps and backsteps occur, to allow a license to be revoked following such an incident seems a travesty.

Judge Gorgi found a number of violations existed but three, in particular, seemed to bother her. First was the admission that police would stop motorists who did nothing wrong except try to avoid the checkpoint even if they used the route the police created. Additionally, the lack of proper notice
before the check point coupled with its location led her to rule the entire event was wrong.

Along with my friend Aaron Bortel of the Law Office of Aaron Bortel, I held two days of hearings on this checkpoint. Testimony showed:

• the San Francisco Police did not follow the rules on advance publicity
• proper signage to allow the general public NOT to go in to the stop was nonexistant
• the criteria used to select which cars would be stopped was insufficient
• there was inadequate chain of command, and
• the location of the checkpoint was improper

Each of these factors have been considered critical in DUI checkpoint cases.

Roadblocks have been held to be Constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in a number of cases. In California, the Supreme Court has allowed roadblocks provided they meet several impartial criteria. The main reason for such procedures is to ensure that a roadblock does not become a police tool for prejudicial enforcement.

Allowing an officer to look at cars and select drivers to be questioned based solely on what they look like smacks of discrimination. Maybe the office only picks blacks, or women, or as in my clients case Asians. That is fundamentally wrong

During testimony the Officer in charge of the layout presented a diagram of the location, cone pattern and warning signs. All critical elements according to the California Supreme Court and as required by the Federal Operations Manual. Mr. Bortel then pointed out that if the diagram was correct, then the right of avoidance, a necessity for a roadblock, did not exist. At this point the officer changed his testimony and said the diagram misrepresented where signs had been placed.

I then impeached the officer by showing actual pictures of the scene witch matched the diagram and showed the officer to being less than honest. Additionally, I was able to show that if the officer’s testimony was to be believed, the signs would have been two blocks before the roadblock, another procedural violation.

Given that roadblocks are the least effective means of DUI enforcement, yielding less than a 2% arrest rate; that they create danger to officers and the public; and that they use an inordinate amount of resources (some 20 or so personnel); and that they are really upheld in court, one wonders why they still are used.

Seems like driving legislation through the legislature is better for Krusee  than driving a vehicle – seems like he just picked up his 2nd DUI arrest and faces this special fine himself.

The police conducted a dui investigation which the overweight woman had trouble completing, finally she provided a breath sample which measured .04. Still, she was arrested, her child taken away from her as she was taken to jail. At the jail she provided a chemical test that was below the .04 she provided in the field. That didn’t stop the District Attorney from filing charges for DUI instead of apologizing for the conduct of law enforcement.

The truth of the matter was that she was driving home from dental surgery, she stopped for lunch and ordered a mimosa which she didn’t finish as it irritated her mouth, she then switched to water… which was served in a wine glass, repeatedly.

This article is a statement of the sad reality of how one person, who wasn’t doing anything wrong, ended up in a legal pickle.

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.”

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.”