DUI News Blog The Latest DUI News and Information From DUI Defense Attorneys Across the Country

Law enforcement officers in California have long relied on the 4-3 California Supreme Court decision, Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321, to stop motorists in DUI checkpoints without a warrant or any vehicle code violation.  However, the decision came with certain limitations for constitutional compliance, and one factor is whether motorists are given advance publicity of these checkpoint stops.  Nothing in the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (another DUI ... Read More »

Did you know that “unconsciousness” may be a complete defense to a criminal charge, including the offense of driving under the influence? One may be deemed “unconscious” even though they are walking and talking. The only requirement for this defense in a DUI case is that there must be at least a reasonable doubt that the state of unconsciousness was caused by involuntary intoxication. One instance in which the defense arises is where the accused took a prescribed dose of ... Read More »

California Penal Code § 1001.80 will likely be amended to clarify that misdemeanor DUI offenses (Vehicle Code §§ 23152 and 23153) are not precluded from military diversion eligibility.  The California Senate, by a vote of 38-0, has already passed SB-725 to add proposed subsection (l) to California Penal Code § 1001.80 as follows: Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 23640 of the Vehicle Code, a misdemeanor offense for which a defendant may be placed in a pretrial diversion program in accordance ... Read More »

The United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) ___ U.S. ___ (Docket No. 14-1468) presents some new angles for defending DUI charges in California. Birchfield holds that in the absence of lawful consent under the Fourth Amendment, the police may not forcibly extract a blood sample from a DUI suspect or threaten a jail sanction in order to coerce consent to blood testing. If they do not obtain free and voluntary consent, they must get ... Read More »

You were arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and told you were required to submit to a chemical test of your breath or blood. You may have also been told you had no right to speak with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to one or the other. There may be legal grounds under the Fourth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution to suppress the test results from evidence. The seminal case of Missouri v. ... Read More »

I once talked to a criminal defense attorney who told me in the late ’60’s he won 17 consecutive motions to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment violations committed by the police. Many DUI defense attorneys have not prevailed on that many motions to suppress evidence in their careers. What happened is that our courts became packed with conservative judges following the ouster of Rose Bird and two of her colleagues on the California Supreme Court. Voters in California were ... Read More »

The California State Bar has issued a formal opinion about misleading representations by attorneys on their websites and blogs (Formal Opinion Interim No. 12-0006) and the reason is that too many lawyers are making claims that have no basis in reality. Some claim to be recognized as one of the “Top 100 Trial Lawyers In America” but fail to mention that they simply paid $375.00 for the logo and trophy and did nothing to earn the purported distinction. Another popular ... Read More »

Many drivers fail to use a turn signal when they should, but in daytime hours it does not usually result in a traffic stop. The same is not true late at night because police officers are often looking for reasons to stop drivers just to see if they have had too much to drink. Some California counties have specific DUI police patrols active between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. Yet a turn signal is not always legally required for a ... Read More »

Most DUI suspects in California know they have the right to remain silent. They have heard it countless times on television but can have difficulty exercising the right if they have been drinking. If they decide to talk to the police they can be misquoted or have their statements misinterpreted. Most of the time it is best to just say nothing. That was until the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Tom (Docket No. S202107 – August 14, ... Read More »

In Navarette v. California, the United States Supreme Court recently addressed the constitutionality of police stopping a motorist based on an anonymous 911 call. The decision holds that it depends on the “totality of the circumstances.” In this particular case, the enforcement stop was deemed constitutional based on the following facts: Use of 911 system (suggestive that caller was not concerned about report being traced back to him); Detailed description of driving which was consistent with the driving of an ... Read More »