Southern California Defense Blog

Police Officers can legally pull a person over for just about any violation of the California Vehicle Code as an excuse to investigate whether the driver of the vehicle is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, one of the more common violations officers cite as the probable cause to pull vehicles over to investigate DUI's is Vehicle Code Section 22107, more commonly known as "unsafe turning movement". This section reads as follows: No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

What this means, in a nutshell, is that you do NOT have to use your turn signal (blinker) unless there is another vehicle that could be affected by your turning movement. Cops often times don't know this provision in the code and think that you must always use your turn signal when changing lanes or turning. Police who use this excuse to pull over DUI drivers often neglect to mention in their DUI report that there was another vehicle that could have been affected by that vehicle's turning movement.

Our firm recently handled a case where a Police Sergeant with over 20 years of experience on the force pulled over our client for VC 22107. At the motion to suppress, the Officer testified that he observed our client's car side by side and to the left of another vehicle when our client made a "sharp turn" to the left without using his signal and the officer pulled him over for an alleged violation of VC 22107. The officer contacted our client who admitted that he'd had too much to drink and he was arrested for DUI. We argued to the judge that the vehicle to the right of our client's vehicle could NOT have been affected by our client's left turn. The judge agreed and granted our motion and the case was dismissed.

For the record, we are not saying that you should change lanes or make turns without using your signal and are certainly not condoning driving under the influence. What we are saying is that if you are cited for a DUI, you should hire an experienced and knowledgeable law firm like Wallin & Klarich to handle your case to give you the best chance of a favorable outcome.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is a serious offense, which can carry harsh penalties including heavy fines, license suspension, and even jail time. The severity of DUI laws varies from state-to-state; however, most states enforce DUI laws rigorously. If you have been arrested on charges of DUI, you may wish to speak with an experienced attorney at Wallin & Klarich who can help you understand your rights.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) is a common factor in determining a person's level of intoxication. The minimum BAC needed for a DUI conviction in CA is .08%. In the case of underage drivers, any BAC may constitute a DUI offense.

An officer can obtain a person's BAC through a Breathalyzer test, or blood analysis. Unfortunately, these tests are not failsafe as the margin for error is large. A qualified DUI attorney from Wallin & Klarich can answer any questions you may have about these tests and their outcomes.

Call Wallin & Klarich at 1-888-749-0034 and we can answer any legal questions you may have.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

A recent press release from the California Highway Patrol announced that the agency has received a federal grant to arrest DUI drivers with outstanding warrants for failure to appear in court on DUI charges, or failure to pay fines or show proof of completion of other requirements imposed by the court after a DUI conviction.

The CHP press release described how every year individuals are arrested for DUI and enter the legal process and that some individuals either fail to appear in court or fail to pay fines associated with DUI offenses. As a result, arrest warrants are issued for these individuals. However, sometimes these warrants are not served in a timely manner allowing the violators to avoid justice until they’re apprehended.

The CHP has indicated that, in order to assure that proper attention is given to outstanding DUI felony and misdemeanor warrants, the CHP has launched a major anti-DUI crackdown through a new federal grant entitled “Stop DUI II.” This grant will allow the CHP to take an aggressive approach to reduce the number of outstanding DUI warrants by establishing teams of officers for the specific purpose of serving outstanding DUI warrants.

California Highway Patrol officers will serve these warrants and arrest the individuals who have been evading the law. The grant’s focus is on CHP’s Valley, Golden Gate and Southern Divisions and extends through December 31, 2008.

Continue reading "CHP GETS FEDERAL GRANT TO CRACKDOWN ON DUI DRIVERS WITH ARREST WARRANTS" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

BREATH MACHINES USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO DETERMINE A DRIVER'S BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT HAVE A SLOPE DETECTOR TO DETERMINE IF MOUTH ALCOHOL IS PRESENT DURING THE SAMPLE. TITLE 17 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OR REGULATIONS REQUIRES OFFICERS TO PERSONALLY OBSERVE AN INDIVIDUAL FOR AT LEAST 15 MINUTES BEFORE ADMINISTERING THE BREATH TEST TO MAKE SURE THEY DO NOT REGURGITATE, VOMIT, OR BURP TO AVOID THE MOUTH ALCOHOL READING.

THE PURPOSE OF THE SLOPE DETECTOR IS TO ABORT THE TEST AND SHOW THE RESULT AS AN "INVALID SAMPLE." A RECENT STUDY SHOWED THAT IN 48% OF THE TESTS PERFORMED, A NUMERICAL RESULT WAS PRODUCTED BETWEEN .02 AND .43% AND IN ONLY 52% OF THE TESTS DID IT REGISTER AS AN "INVALID SAMPLE."

THIS STUDY NOW RAISES THE CONCERNS AS TO THE ABILITY OF THE SLOPE DETECTOR TO ACCURATELY DETECT MOUTH ALCOHOL.

IF YOU ARE FACING A CALIFORNIA DUI CHARGE AND TOOK A BREATH TEST YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY FROM WALLIN & KLARICH.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Facts:

The defendant was involved in a traffic collision and was injured in the collision. The other party involved in the collision was killed and defendant was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter and convicted at trial. He appealed the conviction on the grounds that the police officer that testified at trial was not qualified to rely on the toxicology report in rendering his opinion that he was under the influence of drugs while operating a motor vehicle and there was insufficient evidence that he was under the influence of a drug for purposes of gross vehicular manslaughter.

Officers interviewed the defendant at the hospital and he could not explain how the accident occurred, stating “I was driving down the road one minute. . . and the next minute I was in an accident. Def admitted to taking ambient at 9:00 a.m. and the accident occurred at 9:20 a.m.. A forensic toxicologist testified that Ambien is a “very strong depressant” that is rapidly eliminated from the body and does not build up over time. According to the manufacturer of Ambien, it remains in the system for eight hours. The window of detection of Ambien is “very limited” and the “effects of the drug are very strong through that whole window.” The observable effects of Ambien include drowsiness, poor coordination, poor judgment, and slurred speech.

Continue reading "People v. Merlen, CA 3rd district, Case No. C051678, unpublished opinion has very good material regarding expert testimony re use of ambient and DUI." »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving , Drug Offenses

Bookmark:

Under current law, a person who is convicted of most crimes, and who is placed on probation, and who completes his or her probation successfully, has a right to have his or her conviction dismissed or “expunged” from his or her record. (Pen. Code, § 1203.4, subd. (a).) Under the law, so long as the defendant successfully complies with all terms of probation for the entire period of probation, the court has no discretion to deny the defendant’s application to expunge the conviction.

However, starting January 1, 2008, a defendant convicted of DUI, reckless driving, or hit and run driving, even if the defendant complies with probation for the entire period thereof, no longer has the ability, as a matter of right, to secure an expungement. (Pen. Code, § 1203.4, subd. (c).) Under the new law, a person convicted of DUI, hit and run, or reckless driving, can only secure an expungement “if the court in its discretion and in the interests of justice” decides to grant an expungement. (Ibid.) What this means is that a defendant convicted of, say, child molestation (Pen. Code, § 647.6), who completes his or her probation successfully, has the absolute right to secure an expungement, a defendant convicted of, say a DUI charge, does not have a similar right unless the court decides, “in the interests of justice” to grant the defendant expungement.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Whether it is your first DUI or your third, California State law imposes jail. In cases of a second or third misdemeanor DUI’s the jail time one potentially faces in Orange County DUI cases is very significant, at times up to a YEAR. A skilled attorney, however, can assist in getting you NO county jail time by working with you, the Court and the Probation Department. There is an option in Orange County of rehabilitation and counseling in lieu of jail via DUI Court. There are certain eligibility requirements, however, one must meet before getting accepted into the program. Having an attorney who knows the system and the requirements increases your chances of staying out of jail significantly. So if you find yourself facing a significant amount of jail time in Orange County as a result of a DUI, contact Wallin & Klarich and we will help navigate you through the system and assist you in staying out of jail.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Our firm handled a case recently where a defendant was stopped for Driving Under the Influence in a mall parking lot. The officer cited as the reason for initially stopping the defendant the fact that the defendant “rolled” through a stop sign posted in the mall’s parking lot – i.e., our client did not come to a full and complete stop at the stop sign. When the client was stopped, it was determined that he was under the influence of alcohol, and he was arrested. The District Attorney initially offered that our client should plead guilty or no contest to DUI charges and pay a steep fine and attend alcohol classes, and be on probation for three years.

After reviewing the relevant law, we found that the Vehicle Code does not impose a duty upon a driver to stop at a stop sign posted on private property. Our office retained an investigator to investigate the property, and we obtained certified copies of the deed to the mall parking lot, which showed conclusively that the parking lot was owned by a private entity. Our investigator also took photographs of the mall’s parking lot entrances, and, especially, the signs showing that the parking lot was “private property” thereby negating any inference of mistake.

After our attorneys filed a written motion to suppress evidence – citing the fact that the stop was conducted illegally on private property – the District Attorney agreed to dismiss all DUI charges against our client. No probation. No classes. No fine. Nothing. Case dismissed.

While certainly no one condones ignoring a stop sign, whether posted on private property or public property, and failing to stop at a sign could give rise to civil liability if there is an accident and someone is hurt, the Vehicle Code does not permit an officer to stop and cite a person simply for failing to stop at a stop sign on private property.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

This is the question that many people arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol are being asked in at least one state, and this law enforcement practice has many bar owners fuming.

New Jersey officers have begun regularly asking all DUI arrestees where they had their last drink. The question seems innocuous enough. However, the officers plan to use this information to target establishments that serve alcoholic beverages to people who are “obviously intoxicated” a violation of New Jersey law. Bar owners claim that they already operate under a state regulation that punishes them from serving intoxicated patrons, and that law enforcement officers should not be relying upon people who may be impaired to provide credible information about where they had their last drink.

Although there is no indication that California officials have present plans to enact such a policy, California does have a law on the books that punishes anyone “who furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25602, subd. (a).) A violation of this statute is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for six months, or by fine of $1000, or both such fine and imprisonment. (Ibid.; Pen. Code, § 19.)

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

So the cop pulled you over while driving. He administered the Field SobrietyTests and then placed you under arrest. You were a little bit drunk and were cited for a DUI. How did this happen? Well, you might not have seen those illuminated signs asking drivers to report drunk drivers at the local highway, but believe it or not, the majority of DUI cases are phoned in by good Samaritans.

“Joe Schmo called the pigs and Officer Oink was dispatched to the area I was driving” said my client. The officer then immediately pulled the client over. The officer then administered the Field Sobriety Tests and placed him under arrest.

The gentleman hired WK to run a motion to suppress. During the hearing the dispatcher and the arresting officer testified that they received a call from Joe Schmo and the court allowed this testimony pursuant to People v. Orozco.

During cross-examination, Officer Oink related that he witnessed no bad driving and that he pulled Client over because of the tip from Joe Schmo. Result: CASE DISMISSED for lack of probable cause. Because the client did not commit any vehicle code violations while the officer was tailing him, the judge dismissed the case.

Bottom Line: Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, make sure you have an attorney from WK to represent you.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

As criminal defense lawyers, people sometimes ask us, "Why shouldn’t I just plead guilty to my DUI charge? After all, I was drinking that night. I did blow a .08 when I was arrested. Shouldn’t I just forget about hiring a DUI lawyer and just plead guilty at the first court date?" Our answer is, "We would recommend you hire a lawyer, and we would recommend that you plead ‘Not Guilty’ at the first court date." Why is that our advice? Keep reading.

In a recent DUI case in San Diego, one of our Wallin & Klarich attorneys held an evidentiary hearing where he cross examined the police officer when the officer was on the witness stand testifying. The police officer had detained the client for DUI. The police officer made the client do a bunch of Field Sobriety Tests. The cop felt that the client failed all of them. The client blew a .08. The client was arrested for a DUI. Slam dunk case for the prosecution, right? Wrong. The Wallin & Klarich attorney got the police officer to admit on the stand that he had not been properly trained how to conduct all of the Field Sobriety Tests, and there were some of the tests which he hadn’t been trained to do at all. The police officer basically said that he didn’t know exactly when someone failed a test—so he just guessed. The police officer even admitted that he conducted his tests based on the advice given to him by some unidentified individual who was NOT his supervisor and NOT during official DUI Field Sobriety Test training meetings.

Continue reading "Should I Plead Guilty to a DUI?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

Have you noticed more Driving Under the Influence (DUI) checkpoints lately? Have you noticed more and more celebrities getting arrested and convicted of DUI charges lately? One only has to open their local newspaper to see Paris Hilton, Lane Garrison, Nichole Richie, etc. and their problems with DUI’s!

Well, there is a reason for all of this. California is “cracking down” on DUI’s and going after DUI offenders with an iron fist! Local law enforcement agencies and probation departments have recently allocated millions of dollars to go after DUI offenders. What this means is more DUI checkpoints, more officers working overtime just to combat DUI’s, more probation officers being hired to deal with DUI offenders if they are convicted, etc.

Continue reading "California “Cracking Down” on DUI’s" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

The holidays mean good times, family gatherings, and company parties, but they also mean increased DUI enforcement and drunken driving incidents. The holiday season has just begun, and law enforcement agencies are strictly enforcing DUI laws to avoid drunken driving accidents, injuries and casualties.

For example the city of Santa Clarita, California has partnered with the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station in a new Anti-DUI program that aims to attack perpetrators of California DUI laws during the holidays via various mediums. Television and print advertisements will display a person getting a DUI and contrast the costs of a drink with DUI penalties. The city is also partnering in a statewide campaign aiming to reduce Californians between the ages of 21-34 from driving impaired during the holidays.

According to a preliminary report from the California Highway Patrol, 1,537 people were arrested on Thanksgiving weekend in California for driving under the influence from 6 p.m. Wednesday to 6 a.m. Saturday. Twenty percent of those California DUI arrests occurred in Los Angeles County. 38 people were killed in traffic collisions statewide this Thanksgiving weekend, a figure that is down from last year's 52 state wide deaths but up from Los Angeles County's totals during that period.

These increased efforts are motivated in part by past National Highway Traffic Safety Administration research on drunken driving related fatalities during the holidays. While enforcement programs are stepped up during the holidays, the fact remains that people tend to drink more during this time of the year. Ultimately, safety will come down to each person being responsible after drinking by selecting a designated driver, leaving his or her vehicle and catching a ride from a sober friend, taking public transportation, or hailing a cab.

It said that the overall cost to a defendant found guilty of a DUI can surpass $10,000 when you take into account court fines, DUI school fees, restitution fees, auto insurance increases, etc. In addition there are many other serious consequences related to a DUI arrest. These include the real potential for loss of your driving privilege, probation, fines, etc. Doesn’t it make sense to seek out the legal assistance of a highly experienced DUI law firm with so much at stake? Call Wallin & Klarich at 877-466-5245 so we can begin to help you now.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

If you are familiar with the midnight ride, you are familiar with what goes on during its course. More than 500 bicycle riders get together to ride 26 miles once every two months. Riders are encouraged to stop off at local convenient stores, purchase alcoholic beverages and consume them prior to starting their ride again.

My client was shocked when he was pulled over for driving under the influence the other day. He couldn’t believe that he was cited for a DUI while riding his bicycle. “It’s not a motorbike.” He kept on repeating to the arresting officer. Well, it doesn’t have to be. The California Jury Instructions provides the following:

Continue reading "DUI on a Bicycle?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

A recent court decision made changes in the way criminal defense lawyers may present their DUI cases in trial. Many judges have not been allowing defense lawyers to present certain evidence regarding whether or not the defendant was actually under the influence. This new court decision is telling all other judges that they must allow defense lawyers to present evidence that their clients were not driving under the influence.

What evidence are we talking about? Personal partition ratios. Now, when a defendant took a breath test, and the prosecutor uses the breath test to prove that the defendant was under the influence, the criminal defense lawyer will be able to use evidence regarding the breath test to show that the defendant was actually not under the influence at the time of driving.

Continue reading "Recent Court Decision Makes Changes in DUI Cases" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

A citizen arrested for DUI usually has the right to choose between taking a breath test or a blood test. There is, of course, a third choice: refuse to take either. The individual can do this, but there are consequences: he will face an increased jail sentence or a longer driver’s license suspension — or, in most states, both.

The problem is that some police just won’t take “no” for an answer. An increasing practice among law enforcement agencies is to simply ignore this third choice and forcefully take blood from the arrestee (although some states have banned this practice). By doing this, they can “have their cake and eat it, too”: blood is obtained for testing– and the suspect still suffers the heavier sentencing for having refused.

Continue reading "TAKING BLOOD BY FORCE:" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

So you have heard about DUI’s but do no know exactly what they entail? Hopefully, this blog will serve as a quick reference guide to DUI’s. The acronym DUI stands for Driving Under the Influence. It can refer to a person driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or some other controlled substance. Moreover, sometimes a DUI may also be referred to as a “deuce” or a DWI, which stands for Driving While Intoxicated.

The basic code section for a DUI is found in the California Vehicle Code (CVC.) CVC 23152(a) states that it is unlawful for any person to drive a vehicle who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug. CVC 23152(b) states that it is unlawful for any person to drive a vehicle who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood. As you can see, section (a) deals with alcohol or drugs, while section (b) deal with just alcohol. When citing an individual for an alcohol related DUI, the arresting agency will almost always cite him or her for both sections (a) and (b). Thus, do not be surprised to see both CVC 23152(a) and CVC 23152(b) on your citation, if you ever get arrested for an alcohol related DUI.

Continue reading "What Exactly Is a DUI?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark:

So you think that famous people with money can use their fame and fortune to get out of Driving Under the Influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) charges? You think that DUI’s only happen to “us regular folk”? Well, all you have to do is pick up a newspaper or your favorite celebrity gossip magazine to see that this is not the case. In fact, celebrities getting arrested on suspicion of DUI seem to be on the rise in Los Angles County.

It seems that just about every week, there is another celebrity getting arrested for a DUI. For example, Nicole Richie got arrested on suspicion of DUI not to long ago and her case is still pending. Moreover, as just about everyone knows by now, Paris Hilton was convicted of alcohol related reckless driving and was placed on probation. She violated her probation and was forced to do time behind bars. Then, there is Lindsay Lohan who was recently arrested on two separate occasions on suspicion of DUI. Both of these cases are still pending.

These examples illustrate the fact that no one is immune to DUI prosecution and that DUI’s can happen to the best of us. DUI’s can be very humiliating to all of us. The ramifications of a DUI can literally be life altering. It is good to know that the Law Offices of Wallin and Klarich have over thirty years experience in fighting and winning DUI cases. If you or a loved one happen to have some bad luck like Ms. Hilton, Ms. Lohan, or Ms. Richie, call Wallin and Klarich and have comfort knowing that you are in good hands!

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI & Drunk Driving

Bookmark: