Los Angeles DUI Lawyer Blog

One of the biggest goals our firm fights hard to achieve for our clients, is to avoid any jail time and to receive the lowest possible sentence. However, if there is a complex criminal history, or the charge is a serious one, jail time may not always be avoided.

Even though jail time may be a part of a person's eventual sentence, there are creative alternatives that will allow them to avoid serving the time in an actual county jail or state prison. These alternatives are granted as a result of well prepared negotiation and skill with the Judge and Prosecution by an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense attorney.

The option of house arrest is available to many people in lieu of serving traditional county jail or state prison. House arrest comes in many forms, including electronic surveillance, house confinement, or home detention. Each achieve the same goal; to allow a person to serve mandatory time in their own home.

Most house arrest sentenced do not require that a person remain only in their home. The Judge will take into account several factors when determining the restrictions that will be placed on the house arrest sentence. Depending on the severity of the convicted offense, a person may be able to attend work or school, social obligations, and other similar events.

As a person under house arrest, they would be subject to random drug searches, may be required to check in with an officer, and also may be under electronically surveillance. This is how the court will continue to monitor the house arrest, and confirm that the person granted the creative alternative is taking it seriously and does not need their privileges revoked.

When it is not possible to avoid a mandatory jail sentence, a creative alternative is ideal. However, it is important to note that Judges and Prosecution are very hesitant to offer this option. A skillful Criminal Defense attorney that has built a solid reputation among criminal courts in Southern California may be granted the option for their clients after providing a powerful argument.

Many of our clients proclaim that the officer had no reason to stop them while driving and administer a field sobriety test. The reason may be any number of things, but our clients hold that those are false allegations. If there is no actual probable cause for an officer to pull someone over, then they cannot charge you with a DUI. Some common causes that officers cite for pulling a person over include: weaving in and out of lanes, broken taillight, not indicating before turning, and not staying within the lanes. If a person is stopped for doing any of the aforementioned violations, plus any others, an officer has a right to stop the person and ask the person to complete some field sobriety tests if they feel it may be necessary.

In the absence of any valid reason to stop a person, the officer has no right to do so. The police report will list the reason the person was initially stopped. When a person claims that there was never a reason to stop them, it is the officer's word against our client's, which brings up the issue of credibility. Generally the officer is taken to be accurate in his report, and his or her word is to be taken as truth. The person charged however, does not have as much credibility for many reasons, including the assumption that they were intoxicated at the time of the report.

When a person claims that there is no probable cause, it can often be difficult to prove. For example, say a person is stopped by an officer because they were weaving in and out of lanes. The officer stops the person, and notices symptoms of intoxication and administers a field sobriety test. The person is found to have a relatively high BAC and is taken into the station and charged with a DUI. Later on the person hires a Los Angeles DUI attorney and claims they were not weaving in and out of lanes, and therefore the officer had no right to stop them.

This would be difficult to prove when it is the officer's word against that of the person charged, unless there are witnesses to corroborate the story. There may be other passengers in the car, or there may be friends who are following them and watch as the officer stops the driver. In these situations, they may be able to make an argument, but there will always be an element and doubt for bias.

Oftentimes it is difficult to disprove what is written in the police report, but there is certainly room to try. An experienced and knowledgeable DUI attorney can explain all possible defenses and its probability for success in an obligation free consultation.

Many of our clients are suspected for a DUI even when they are in a vehicle that is pulled over or not being driven. If the government cannot prove that a person was driving the car under the influence of alcohol, the case may be dismissed.

A crucial element that must be present in any DUI case is the fact that the person charged was in fact driving the vehicle. This must be proven without a reasonable doubt before anyone can be convicted and sentenced for a DUI in Los Angeles. When a person is found in a vehicle that is parked, prosecution relies on surrounding circumstances and facts to prove that the person was in fact driving.

Several different facts will be taken into account. One of the things they will consider is where was the car parked? Was it in the parking lot of the venue, was it on the side of the freeway, was it in front of a friend's house? If the car is at the venue, or at a friend's house and hasn't moved, there is a stronger argument that the driver had not driven the car anywhere. In comparison, if the car is on the side of the freeway, the government has a strong argument that the person drove the car there, and then decided to pull over.

They will also ask where the keys to the vehicle are. If the person has them in their pocket, it implies that they were the driver. Similarly, if the keys are in the ignition, then there is still a stronger case that the car had recently been driving. In contrast, if the person doesn't have the keys, then they might not be the driver at all, and perhaps someone else had been driving the car and was no longer with the vehicle.

Officers will also note where the person was sitting in the car. Were they in the passenger seat or in the driver's seat? Were they sleeping in the back seat? In addition to these factors, there will also be a mention of how hot the engine was to determine when it had most recently been driven.

One of the crucial elements to a Los Angeles DUI case is that the person charged was driving a vehicle while intoxicated. The strongest case is one in which the officer observes the person driving, but that is not to say that someone who is not observed driving cannot be charged with a DUI. If the person is not observed by the officer, circumstantial evidence may still lead to the conclusion that the person charged had been driving while intoxicated at some point prior to the arrest.

If the case is based on facts, and not the direct observation of the officer, there is a lot of room for subjectivity and argument. An experienced Los Angeles DUI Attorney has handled thousands of cases similar to these. Their experience and knowledge can prepare a strong argument and defense so that the charges may ultimately be reduced or dropped altogether.

When a person is charged with a DUI, the government makes their case using all evidence gathered during the arrest. This evidence will include the officer's report and observations as well as the reading from any blood or breath test taken. These two pieces of evidence will make the bulk of prosecution's case against a person, therefore if either account is inaccurate; it is in the best interest of the defense to argue its validity.

The accuracy of a breath test can be argued by demonstrating that the machine has not been properly calibrated, or it is running insufficiently. This is done by subpoenaing the maintenance records and reviewing them. If the machine has been used for a long time without having been checked for accuracy, there may be a weakness in prosecution's case.

The reliability of blood test results may also be argued. This is done by questioning the lab that has done the testing. The lab may have contaminated the sample, may be biased, or may have even tested the sample inaccurately. To obtain a valid, accurate sample, the person charged with the DUI has the right to have the blood sample tested by an independent lab. They also have a right to go to their own doctor and have their blood tested. However, this does weakens the strength of the blood sample as evidence because many hours have passed since the original arrest. Consequently, the sample will not reflect an accurate reading of the Blood Alcohol Level.

An experienced Los Angeles DUI attorney has successfully argued thousands of Driving Under The Influence cases and knows exactly how to weaken prosecution's case. A detailed analysis is conducted regarding the validity of the police report and the alcohol screening test that was administered. If there are any weaknesses or possible causes for invalidity, a knowledgeable DUI specialist will be sure to expose them to the government. A powerful defense will reduce the amount of evidence the government has against a person and result in a reduced or dismissed case.

Many of our clients claim that they were never given the opportunity to have a lawyer present during their DUI stop and therefore had their constitutional rights violated. Unfortunately, previous case law carves out an exception for those stopped for a DUI, and in many situations a person does not have the right to have an attorney present.

Right to an attorney before deciding whether to take the Blood or Breath test
The Constitution does not require that you have the right to consult an attorney before choosing which test to take. This is a decision that you must make on your own.

Right to an attorney during the administration of an Alcohol Screening Test

Similar to the right to consult an attorney before choosing a blood or breath test, the right to an attorney during the alcohol screening test is not a constitutionally protected right. Officers do not have to inform arrested persons about having an attorney present during the administering of the test. One of the main reasons is for efficiency. Alcohol screening tests are often time sensitive, and to gather an accurate reading must be given close to the time of the arrest.

Right to an attorney before any questioning

Miranda warnings are usually required during an arrest of any kind that involves questioning. However, case law has made an exception for DUI arrests, and Miranda warnings are not required to be given. Miranda warnings advise the person arrested that they have a right to an attorney, and if they cannot afford one, one will be given to them. Because Miranda warnings have been decided as not required, officers are not required to allow a person arrested for a DUI to have an attorney present during any kind of questioning. Nevertheless, a person's 5th amendment right is always in place and is constitutionally protected. The 5th amendment right gives the person a right to remain silent and not say anything that may incriminate them. So, whereas a person arrested for a DUI may not have any right to an attorney during questioning, they do have a right to decline answering any questions that may be asked by officers.

An experienced Los Angeles DUI attorney can help protect your rights throughout the duration of the cases. Although, there are very few rights to an attorney during the arrest, there are many protections during the courtroom process and sentencing itself. At Hoffman and Associates we provide powerful representation to ensure that you are provided by the fullest extent of the law, and are not denied any protections offered to you under the Constitution.

California law requires drivers as a condition of issuing them a license to submit to a chemical test if requested by a police officer when one has been stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Drivers have a choice to submit to a breath sample or blood sample to determine the alcohol content, if any, in their bloodstream.

This is implied consent law makes it a separate aggravating circumstance to a drunk driving case, if the driver either refuses or fails to complete one of these two tests. The law requires not only that the driver suspected submit to a test, but requires completion of a test culminating in a result. One's effort, for example by blowing into a breathalyzer machine is not sufficient unless a result is obtained. If a driver will not, or cannot complete the test chosen, then they must submit to the remaining text.

Should a suspected driver failed to submit to and complete a blood alcohol test to determine the alcohol content, or drug presence, they will be also charged with a refusal. This enhancement, can not only result in mandatory jail time, but subjects the driver to greatly enhance license suspension. For example, a driver who has been arrested for a DUI takes a breath test with a result of .24. This driver should only receive a one-month suspension of their driving privilege as long as they enroll in an appropriate alcohol program.

A driver either refuses, or fails to complete a blood alcohol test of their breath or blood face a license suspension of one year. Essentially their punishment is 12 times harsher than having taken a test, even with a high alcohol score.

Clearly, based upon the above example, it should seem obvious that complying with the requirements of implied consent law, rather than refusing to complete a test, has dramatically less severe consequences.

Should your case go to trial, and you have refused to take or complete a chemical test, the jury in most cases would be instructed that failure to comply with this law may show your consciousness of guilt. This additional negative inference, can often weigh extremely negative in the minds of many jurors. Our Los Angeles DUI firm has defended drivers under these circumstances, for many years, and prefers its clients to have less charges against them.

It is the officer's job to gather evidence for a DUI case from the moment a person is stopped on the suspicion of being under the influence. They administer Blood Alcohol screening tests and prepare a report outlining observations that led to the belief of intoxication. The blood or breath test is entered into evidence, as is the officer's report. The officer's report is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence means that it is evidence gathered through observation, questioning and the general educated analysis of the officer. It is evidence, that when combined together, leads to a conclusion.

Officer's write many reports a day, and tend to overlap a lot of information. An experienced California DUI attorney reads thousands of reports and can explain to a client the terms that are routinely included in all driving under the influence reports, and discuss if they pertain if at all to the specific case.

Certain boilerplate terms such as, red watery eyes, slurred speech, smell of alcohol emanating from the driver and the car, fumbling or having trouble presenting license are included in all police reports. These terms are a stereotype of drivers who are impaired and are included in every police report to strengthen the government's case against a person.
Unfortunately, the officer's report is given greater credibility in comparison to the driver's account of the facts for several reasons. The driver is assumed to be intoxicated, and therefore having impaired senses, inaccurate memory, and blurred vision. Additionally, the officer's report is presumed to have been prepared by a neutral party whereas the driver's account of the arrest is self serving and bias. Whether this is true or not, it is the assumption of the court, and a perceived reality.

When officer's tend to include boilerplate terms in all DUI arrest reports, there is room for argument and error. An experienced San Diego DUI attorney knows when certain terms may be inaccurate and included as a form of habit, and which terms will serve to weaken the government's case.

When the Officer's report is presented as evidence in court, it is generally weighed with greater credibility than that of the driver in a DUI case. There are several different factors that lead the Judge and Prosecution to believe that the officer's account of the arrest holds higher validity than that of the driver.

1. General notion that the driver is intoxicated
The driver has consumed alcohol and is presumed to have been intoxicated, otherwise there wouldn't be a DUI charge. When a person has been drinking they are said to not have full use of all senses. They may perceive things slowly, not be able to respond quickly, as well as have blurred vision. These effects of drinking create the perception that the driver was not in a state of complete awareness, and therefore may have a misconceived notion of the facts.

2. High Blood Alcohol Level (BAC)Whether it is true or not, when a person has a higher BAC, the assumption is that they have a higher level of impaired senses. They are assumed to have blurred vision, not be able to walk straight, or speak without slurring, and they are generally not thinking clearly or with proper logic. As a result, when the BAC is higher the Judge and Prosecutor will assume that the driver's side of the story should not be weighed heavily due to the high level of impairment they are perceived to be experiencing at the time of the arrest.

3. Bias towards self interest
In general, when people are defending themselves against a DUI, they have an interest in protecting themselves and having the case dismissed. It is presumed that officers are a neutral party and will report neutral facts regarding the arrest. Consequently, the arguments and facts given by the driver are often assumed to be biased and to further a personal agenda.

4. Memory is affected by alcohol and drug consumption
Whether it is the case or not, when a person has consumed alcohol or drugs, their memory is not as accurate. The greater the blood alcohol level, the higher the level of inaccuracy. Oftentimes when a person has had a lot to drink and has a high BAC, they will black out pieces from their memory, unable to piece together a coherent string of events. In court, Judges and Prosecution will play up the assumption that the driver does not remember what happened the night of the arrest, and therefore, the officer's report is the only accurate piece of evidence. This is especially true in cases where the driver has a higher blood alcohol level.

There are many preconceived notions working against a driver when it comes to their credibility. Because of these assumptions, Judge and Prosecutors tend to take the officer's report as the only accurate piece of evidence from the night of the arrest. Unfortunately, the driver is not always bias, or under impairment, and the officer's report is not always accurate. An experienced Los Angeles DUI attorney knows precisely how to prepare a powerful argument on behalf of the driver that shows the strengths of the case and exposes the potential errors of the officer.

When driving privileges are suspended in California, the DMV is required to provide notice to the driver. When a person is charged with a Driving on a Suspended License, one of the required elements that government must prove is that there was knowledge of the suspended license. If the driver had no knowledge that their license was suspended, the charged may be dismissed.

Whereas the DMV must inform you of any changes to your driving privileges, they are not required to keep your residential or mailing address current in their records. It is the driver's responsibility to inform the DMV of any changes in address, and to do so promptly and efficiently. If mail is sent to the wrong address, it will not be forwarded. This may lead to some serious problems with the courts and the DMV.

One of our clients had moved but had forgotten to notify the DMV of the change in address. Additionally, he had accrued a few minor traffic tickets which he was not aware of due to the change in address. As a result, his license was suspended. While driving he was stopped for a routine broken taillight but when officers ran his license they found that he required to attend court and left with the hassle of cleaning up his record, which could have easily been avoided by notifying the DMV.

An experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense attorney has dealt with thousands of Suspended License cases and knows the proper defense and options. They have handled many cases in their career that deals with a lack of knowledge about the suspended license. The attorneys at Hoffman and Associates help prepare a powerful defense that shows the Judge that a case is more than a number, but a person with positive attributes and a contributing member of society.