DUI Defender

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.”

As law enforcement steps up its efforts to investigate and subsequently arrest more drivers for driving under the influence we are beginning to see an increase in driving under the influence of drugs cases, or more commonly called, “drugged driving.” We continue to see cases with Ambien and other sleep aids more commonly that those involving marijuana but we are seeing an increase in marijuana as well.

Marijuana cases cause specific problems for law enforcement as there are no standards for quantifying the blood or urine concentration that will result in impaired driving. It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. The parent drug is the actual drug consumed while the metabolyte is the processed, but still measurable residue from the drug. Unfortunately, many involved in law enforcement are unaware that the metabolyte is not active and is not currently affecting/impairing the test subject.

In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concedes, “It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations. It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method. Mathematical models have been developed to estimate the time of marijuana exposure within a 95% confidence interval. Knowing the elapsed time from marijuana exposure can then be used to predict impairment in concurrent cognitive and psychomotor effects based on data in the published literature.”

While more studies need to be conducted on the effects of marijuana on driving, NHTSA, itself states that “some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment.” For information see the NHTSA article about Marijuana and human performance.

As I wrote on October 14 of this year, the requirements for people on probation for DUI or alcohol related driving charges will change to a zero tolerance on January 1, 2009. However, in reading the draft legislation, I didn’t notice that the Legislature added a requirement to provide a breath sample in the field, so while non-probationers have the legal right to refuse the Premininary Alcohol Screen (PAS), a person on probation for an alcohol related driving offense will not.

In changing the law to require persons on probation for drinking related driving offenses to provide PAS tests the Legislature did not change the standards relating to how such evidence is acquired, meaning that the same lax standards that apply to it as an optional test will also apply to it as a mandatory test. What this means is that the standards that California has set in place for evidientiary breath testing will not apply, if the State can demonstrate that the machine was in working order, that the person operating the test was trained and that the proper procedures were follwed the test will be admited. More and more we see tests, that weren’t required under the law, fail to meet the lowest level of scientific protocols and yet, increasingly, we see Judges shirk their role as “gate keeper” and let the test in. Even clear violations of California’s rules relating to chemical testing will be tolerated in some jurisdictions. In these Jurisdictions a person may have their probation violated by a number that was generated by a machine that has a margin of error of .02, that may have been operated by an untrained or improperly trained officer (see, CCR 1221.4(a)(3)(A-E); 1221.4(a)(4)), that may not have been calibrated or maintained in accordance with California State law or that may have been adminstered in a manner that is not scientifically valid (See, CCR1219.3; 1221.1). Unfortunately, the probationer will not have the luxury of a jury to try and convince of the injustice, the decision rests with the Gatekeeper, the Judge.

A professional athlete in Saudi Arabia was sentenced to 80 lashes after being convicted of DUI causing an accident. The only aspect of the crime and sentence is that the defendant/convict retains his privacy

If you ever want to know where a road block will be, or know of where a roadblock will be this site helps keep track of them. This website run by the National Motorists Association tries to document road blocks and generate a grass roots opposition to roadblocks. It also has information on what to do if you encounter a road block. If you want to provide information regarding a roadblock you can.

The Governor has signed into law a statute that will impact anyone on probation for DUI. Effective January 1, 2009, if you are on probation for an alcohol related driving offense (DUI [V.C. 23152(a) or (b), DUI with injury [V.C. 23153(a) or (b)). The law changes means that the old probation requiring a probationer “not to drive with a measurable amount of alcohol” will now require a probationer’s blood alcohol measurement to be zero, meaning that a measurement of .01 or more can result in a probation violation.

The statute doesn’t change the legal requirement that the probationer be lawfully stopped, however, it does mean that the odor of an alcoholic beverage alone will most likley serve as grounds for a probation violation prosecution.

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?

Recently, the Department of Health published the 2007 list of approved DUI program providers. The schools may be found on line. These provider’s are the only provider’s authorized by the Department of Health and accepted by the Department of Motor Vehicles for satisfying requirements related to license suspensions, license restrictions and license reinstatements.