SAMPLE DEFENSES IN CALIFORNIA DUI CASES

A Jury Trial Case

Late last year, Mr. Client was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and driving while his blood alcohol was in excess of .08 percent. I think that such charges should never go unchallenged. They are very serious in every way. Here’s his story:

Client was driving his mother’s car and arguably may have violated a minor traffic law in its operation. LAPD officers stopped him. Client had been drinking moderately and admitted as much to the officers. He complained of a nervous stomach and other problems. He was directed (not asked, an important legal distinction) to take certain field sobriety tests, which the cops testified he failed. He was arrested for DUI, transported to a police station and asked to provide a breath sample. He did so twice on a brand new machine, which was working well. He blew a .16 and a .17 and was booked.

Upon examining Client’s medical records, we discovered that he had been diagnosed with a gastro-esophageal reflux disease. His doctor would so testify. We then consulted with a well-known blood alcohol analyst who told us that this condition made Mr. Client a poor candidate for breath analysis, and that the breath test should be ignored. He, too, said that he would testify to this. Score one for the defense.

We did pre-trial motions to exclude the field sobriety tests (limited, but not excluded) and to suppress all of the evidence as having been illegally seized (no chance, but it made a legal record for an appeal had we lost the trial).

Armed with our expert, and having limited the prosecution’s case, we appeared for trial last month and picked a jury. Two prospective jurors said they didn’t much like lawyers. Their presence on the jury actually changed our trial tactics. We became like Columbo on television, dropping pens, bumbling a bit, but making all our points with last moment “Oh, by the way, . . .” questions. The prosecutor was a fairly typical lawyer.

The prosecution presented the two arresting cops and a criminalist. We presented Mr. Client, his doctor, and our blood alcohol consultant. We argued forcefully that the jury couldn’t trust the breath test, and that a minor violation just doesn’t rise to the criminality of driving under the influence.

We proposed specially drafted jury instructions backed up by legal briefs, and got the jury instructed on the law as we felt it should be explained. The jury came in with not guilty verdicts to both charges. The Client was happy. We liked it, too.

An unusual case? Absolutely not! Every client gets a high level of legal service in our office. We do full preparation and give vigorous representation. Our job is to clear you, and we do our job. Of course, that’s not a guarantee of success. Call 1-866-DUI-MIKE to talk. We’re affordable, and we provide a real bang for the buck.

A Strong Finish Without Trial

Ms. Client, a small attractive housewife, went out for dinner and had a glass of wine with her meal. No other drinking. She was stopped on the way home by police who were looking for somebody driving a “similar” car who was also a small woman. The person they were looking for had just fled the scene of an injury accident. The police officers noted that Ms. Client’s car had no exterior damage at all. They further saw on closer inspection, before they approached the driver, that the front license plate was attached to the car, which was reportedly not attached on the suspect car.

Wishing “to clear up the matter,” the cops approached our client and asked for her license and registration, which she produced. They asked her to get out of the car, which she resisted. She had once been attacked by a man impersonating a policeman and she asked why they needed her out of the car. They simply became more demanding, insistent and began using what they called a “command voice.” To you and me this might be called yelling at her.

She became more frightened and rolled up her window. The cops ordered her out of the car. The cops noted the “strong odor of an alcoholic beverage” and had her do field sobriety demonstrations. She was extremely nervous and upset by this time, and could not concentrate on the required demonstrations. She did not perform them to the satisfaction of the cops. They arrested her for DUI.

I moved to suppress all the evidence of everything which took place after the original stop. My brief pointed out that the cops had no probable cause to stop her car at all, that it was not identified as the perpetrator’s car from the prior incident, but only looked “similar.” They further developed that this was not the car as it had no exterior damage and had the front license attached. Once they knew they were in the presence of the wrong car, they had to let her go. Their desire to “clear up” the matter was simply an unauthorized detention, followed by an illegal search and seizure (they seized the observations of her condition, a sample of her breath, etc.)

The judge ordered all evidence suppressed, and dismissed the charges.

They Got the Wrong Guy

Mr. Client (not related to the above Mr. Client) was noticed, quite wasted, changing a flat tire at the side of the freeway. His girlfriend had been driving because he was in no condition to drive, and she had left to get help for him. When the CHP rolled up, he thanked them for offering to help and handed one of them a lug wrench. The officer noted the “strong odor of an alcoholic beverage” and made him perform their so-called field sobriety tests, which are neither legitimate tests nor designed to determine anyone’s level of sobriety. Mr. Client performed the tests as well as he could, considering his drunken state, all the time protesting that he had not driven the car to that location.

Of course, the officers ignored his explanations and arrested him for a DUI. We made a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that, since he was not the driver, he should not be forced to take any tests. That motion was denied and we began the trial. We picked a jury and let the prosecutor put on her case. We got the cops to remember that he always said someone else was driving. We produced his girlfriend who testified he was not driving, that the tire blew out and she left for help. The jury came in Not Guilty on both counts.