DUI Defender

Recently Chief Justice Roberts fired off an opinion against most of his fellow Justices for not agreeing to review a case from Virginia regarding a DUI stop from an anonymous caller.  The Virginia case was simple; someone called 911 anonymously to report an alleged drunk driver.  Officers responded and found a vehicle matching the caller’s description.  The officers followed the vehicle and despite no bad driving to substantiate the anonymous call, stopped the vehicle.  The Virginia Supreme Court found this to be an unreasonable action in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution but the State asked the United States Supreme Court to review the decision.  The majority of Justices declined leading to Justice Roberts’ outburst.

What Roberts does not seem to grasp is that the Supreme Court has routinely held that standing alone an anonymous tip of illegal activity is not sufficient to accost a citizen UNLESS the illegal activity can be confirmed.  In Florida v. J.L. the Court stated that a 911 call of an Continue Reading »

Although it goes back to 1988, lately we’ve been getting requests for a copy of the transcript of the deposition Marcelline Burns conducted by Kapsack and Bair.

As experts in the field, you will recall that she is the person most responsible for legitimizing field sobriety tests. What many of you may not know is that we were the first law firm to formally depose her.

The transcript of the deposition is available on our main website as one of our DUI Resources.

In the recent story by Sylvia Hsiehin in LawyersUSA on the ramifications of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, I provided some clarification on the scope of the ruling.

Melendez will be an issue only in criminal DUI prosecutions, not in civil or administrative hearings, noted Bruce Kapsack a criminal defense attorney with Kapsack & Bair in San Francisco.

For more details on what exactly this ruling means see my earlier post,
United State Supreme Court Reaffirms The Constitutional Right Of Confrontation

In a decision that has major implications for citizens accused of driving under the influence (DUI), the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts. Mr. Diaz was accused of possessing drugs, and pursuant to the usual procedures the alleged drug was sent to a crime lab for analysis. Rather than bringing in the person who performed the testing, the prosecution merely produced a declaration of the test results. The US Supreme Court held that this violates the right to confront a witness guaranteed to all citizens under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

In the context of DUI cases, many jurisdictions allowed the same procedure; that the blood or urine test results could come in merely by way of a sworn affidavit. For years defense attorneys have argued that this violated the accused’s Constitutional right to question a key witness against them. Now it is clear that it does.

The Court stated that many labs are not in fact “neutral”; they are branches of the law enforcement team. As such they “may feel pressure-or have an incentive- to alter the evidence in a manor favorable to the prosecution”. Further, since the labs are products of the police agencies they often “sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency”. In other words, sometimes people rush or take shortcuts and sometimes they fudge because they work for the same team.

Continue Reading »

On Friday the 22nd of 2006, Judge Gorgi of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled
that a San Francisco police roadblock from last September violated the Constitutional rights of drivers. In two separate DUI defense cases, I was able to successfully argue that the roadblock, set up on Geary at Steiner, did not meet the minimal requirements established by the United States and California Supreme
Courts.

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. Continue Reading »

Well in Texas many things are big including DUI fines. There is a special $3000 “driver responsibility fee” that you can get. One of the driving forces behind this law was Texas State House Transportation Chairman Mike Krusee.

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.

Many times we are confronted with an under age driver who may be charged with a violation of Vehicle Code section 23136 or 23140 NOT 23152 which is the adult DUI statute. It raises the spector of avoiding the one year suspension, The accused has the right to request a hearing prior to the DMV imposing a one year suspension. The case can base the suspension on either a PAS test or an evidentiary test at the police station, jail, or crime laboratory. In truth, VC 23136 is an infraction which means that it is subject to fines in court but no suspension from the court, however, the under 21 year old driver has a very slim chance of winning the APS hearing as the burden of proof born by the DMv is very low, while they must lay a foundation to use the PAS device (sometimes challenging as the law enforcement agencies frequently fail to comply with accepted standards for maintaining and calibrating the hand held device) and frquently we are able to preclude that number, the subsequent evidentiary test is much more difficult to defeat.

How can you defend drunks? That question is posed to those of us specializing in this field more than any other. Lawyers who specialize in murder cases, where the evidence is usually much stronger, are not asked that question. It seems to be a given that a man who is accused of killing his wife is entitled to a strong defense, but not someone who is accused with less evidence.

People say if you drink, you drive, you lose; but that’s not the law. The law in every state of this union is that you CAN consume alcohol and drive, so long as you do so responsibly. So is it wrong for me to represent a person who is stopped for an expired registration and who only had one drink?

Continue Reading »

By now most people have heard of the source code litigation taking place in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Few people however understand what the fuss is all about. Let me put it to you in simple terms.

It is almost the same investigation that was used in evaluating voting machines. That investigation, and software evaluation, revealed a number of flaws which were felt to undermine the reliability of the machines.

In other words, the same type of information that is being sought by people ACCUSED OF CRIMES was turned over for evaluating voting machines. Upon analysis it was determined the machines didn’t pass muster. I am not sure about you, but seems to me that putting people in jail is at least as important as putting someone in office, and that if a machine is not sufficient for the latter it certainly is not for the former.

Suppose you were accused of a crime? Further, suppose that the only witness against you states under oath that they ran a test that proves your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, in some courts, you can not even present evidence against this witness.

Would you consider this fair? Wouldn’t you like to know how the test was conducted? Wouldn’t you like to know how it was graded? Wouldn’t you like to know that the math, answers and all other aspects were legitimate?

That is what source code litigation is all about. Simply put it is the right to find out how the breath machines work. All that is being sought is how do the machines do what they claim they can do.

Is this just a fishing expedition, an exercise in futility and merely an excuse to use up resources and cause delay? You be the judge.

Throughout the time of the Intoxilyzer use in California and elsewhere the manufacturer indicated that these machines performed regular ‘self diagnostics’. For years it was assumed that this was true. Then one December a group of defense attorneys and experts decided to test this program by removing a number of the critical parts of the breath machine and running the program. Turns out that 13 critical parts of the machine can be removed and the self diagnostic still gives an “OK” message.

Think about this; the machine can have a vital part disconnected and it will still tell the police it is operable, still give a reading and STILL CONVICT CITIZENS. In fact, this author brought this to the attention of the Contra Costa crime lab, AND THEY STOPPED USING THOSE MACHINES.

Additionally, it was discovered, through experiments, that when the machine clears itself in between tests, it does not really do so. What the machine truly does is LIE. It prints out that there is no residual alcohol in the machine which would lead one to believe it is empty, and that is exactly what the manufacturer warranted, but what it really does is measure the residual alcohol and allegedly subtracts that from the next sample.

Wouldn’t you like to know if this works? Does the machine round up or down?

Now, given these two examples, BOTH CONTAINED IN THE SOFTWARE, isn’t it reasonable to allow the accused the right to see what other shenanigans may be going on? In every other aspect of criminal defense the accused can see the witness against them, test or retest the evidence, and obtain a full report of how the expert for the government came to its conclusion. But not when it comes to a DUI. The breath is destroyed, the machine is immune from questioning and the manufacturer will not tell anyone, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT, how it works.

All that the source code litigation is demanding is disclosure and fairness. Besides, if you had faith in your processes, why would you try to hide them?

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.”