Los Angeles DUI Lawyer Blog

When a person is stopped on suspicion for driving under the influence, they will be asked to take a blood alcohol test. When a person is issued a driver's license in California, they give their implied consent to submit to a blood alcohol test when asked to do so by officers. Officers will ask a person who is stopped to take a BAC test at the scene of the stop, but the driver is not required by law to do so at that time. This is referred to a preliminary blood alcohol screening test.

The driver will be asked to take a second BAC test, either blood or breath, at the station. This is a required test, and if the person refuses, there will be more severe consequences if the person is convicted. When the person refuses to take any BAC test, it is referred to as a refusal and dealt more severely with Courts.

In many situations, however, a person genuinely attempts to take the BAC test and is unable to do so, regardless, the Court will treat the case as a refusal. It is up to the person being charged and their Los Angeles DUI Defense Lawyer to prepare a strong argument that demonstrates the person's full faith effort to cooperate with officer's requests.

The arresting officer will prepare a report that states the person did not sufficiently provide a sample. There are many reasons a person fails to do so. With a breath test, they may not be able to blow properly, especially if they have asthma or are nervous. A person may not be able to take a blood test if they are scared of needles, or the person gathering the sample is unable to get a measurable sample of blood.

The officer will create a scenario that indicates the driver was uncooperative, that the person was not cooperative and purposely would not provide a sufficient sample. The criminal defense attorney will have to present the facts to the court that proves that it was not the case.

The Los Angeles County DUI specialist will demonstrate that the person provided several samples when asked, regardless of the fact that they were insufficient. The attorney will also show that the person is an upstanding citizen of the community who has always followed the law and has been cooperative with legal obligations. In essence, they must prepare a powerful defense that the person did their best to cooperate with the BAC test, and were unable to do so.

If a person is convicted of a DUI refusal, the consequences are significantly more severe than a DUI without a refusal. The help of a knowledgeable Los Angeles DUI lawyer will assure that the Judge is aware of your full faith effort to comply with officers and that the charge should not have the added enhancement of a refusal. Be sure that you have an experienced attorney to fight for your rights, and assure that you see the most favorable outcome for your case.

Many of our clients who are charged with DUIs are certain they do not know how they became so intoxicated. Many do not know how they have such a high blood alcohol level, and many often claim that someone gave them a date rape drug or the like.

The concern many have is if this is a valid defense against being intoxicated. The general requirement for most criminal charges is the element of Mens Rea. Mens Rea means that there was a mental component to the crime and the person who is being charged knowingly committed the crime. In cases of involuntary intoxication, the person does not know they are committing the crime.

The answer to the inquiry is not as simple as one would like. It involves a lot of subjective area, and above all, concrete evidence. The obstacle most commonly found in an involuntary intoxication defense is solid proof that the person did not know they were intoxicated.

Lets say that Danielle goes out with her friends one night and has a drink at the bar that a guy bought for her. The last memory she has is taking the drink and then being arrested on the corner of the street. She claims that she has been giving a date rape drug, because she had nothing more to drink than that one glass, and by itself that glass would not cause her to be as intoxicated as she was.

The problem with Danielle's argument is that it will be difficult to prove. Unless she went and got tested specifically for the date rape drug in her blood system, she will not be able to prove that she was involuntarily intoxicated. If she had submitted herself for a drug test, or a blood alcohol test by having her blood drawn, then there may be a chance that a date rape drug could be detected and introduced into evidence.

Many people often claim adamantly that they had nothing more to drink than a glass of alcohol and there is no way they could have such a high blood alcohol content. Unfortunately, in many cases people do not realize how much they drank, and without proof the Court is very unlikely to take it into consideration.

When a person drinks a drink that brings them to the point of intoxication, they often forget how many drinks they consume. This makes it difficult to separate those that were actually given a drug that caused them to be intoxicated, and those that merely blanked out on the amount of drinks they consumed.

If you believe that you were involuntarily intoxicated, it may be a defense for your case. This type of defense is very difficult to argue but it is worth consulting a Los Angeles DUI Defense attorney to determine how strong of a defense it may be, and what other options you may have. An experienced attorney has dealt with many cases of involuntary intoxication and is familiar with the Judges and Prosecutors in Southern California. They will be the best person to ask about your case.

Many of our clients believe that because they have refused to take a Blood Alcohol Test during the time of their DUI arrest, there will not be enough evidence to find them guilty of a DUI. This, however, is not true. A person may be found guilty of a DUI based on the arresting officer's observations and any statements made by the driver.

When a person has been charged with a criminal offense, they have the option to accept a plea bargain made by the prosecutor. A plea bargain is an offer for the person being tried to plead guilty for a charge and in exchange receive a lower penalty. If a plea bargain is taken, the person charged will plead guilty to a charge before the criminal Judge and will be given a lowered sentence. If the charged person does not accept the plea bargain, further negotiations may be made. If there is no agreement, the case proceeds to trial.

Lets say David has been charged with a DUI where he has refused to take any BAC test. Officer's observed him as slurring, smelling of alcohol and weaving in and out of lanes. David believe that because he refused to take the BAC they will have no proof as to his intoxication and the case will be dismissed. Prosecutors offer David a plea bargain. They explain to him that if he pleads to a misdemeanor DUI, they will drop any enhanced penalties because of the refusal, and give him the lower end of the legislative penalty for Driving while intoxicated in California. If David takes the offer, he will go before a Criminal Judge and plead guilty to a DUI, be sentenced and his case is closed. However, if David decided he absolutely believes he is innocent, or that there is not enough evidence to find him guilty, he will proceed to trial.

The mistake many people make in a DUI case is that they believe there is not enough evidence to find them guilty of a DUI when they have refused to take a BAC test. Consequently, they do not take a plea bargain and opt to go to trial instead so that the court can make a finding. When there is a trial for a DUI in which the driver has refused to take a BAC test, the jury receives special instructions when determining a verdict. You can use the refusal as an admission of guilt if the person refused to submit for a BAC test after they were given an admonishment of rights. This assumption may only be used if it was given AFTER the admonishment of rights were read and if they were read properly so that the person understood which rights they were giving up.

Due to the fact that there is an assumption of guilt associated with a refusal in trial, it is in the best interest of a person who is charged with a DUI to retain an experienced San Diego DUI attorney. A knowledgeable DUI specialist will be able to provide a thorough analysis of the facts and determine which course of action and possible defenses will be best for the outcome of the case.

During a Los Angeles DMV hearing, the burden is on the driver to prove that they were not intoxicated while driving at the time of the arrest. If an attorney has been hired on the case, then it is the job of the attorney to present a case that demonstrates that there was little or no blood alcohol content. This is completed through testimony, casting doubt on the credibility of the arresting officer's report and any additional witnesses or documents that are necessary.

During the routine DMV hearing the DMV officer will determine whether there was reasonable suspcicion of the arresting officer to stop the driver, whether a blood alcohol content test was taken, and whether the results of that test were over .08. For most DMV hearings, the issues addressed will be these. However, when no BAC test was taken, the DMV hearing will follow an alternate path.

When there is a refusal, the officer will address the issues pertaining to the refusal. They will ask what the reasons were for refusing to take any of the tests offered and whether the person was read an admonishment of rights regarding the refusal.

Anytime a person has refused to take a BAC test, for any reason, the officer must read them an admonishment of rights verbatim. It informs the arrested person that refusing to cooperate and take a test may result in added penalties if they are convicted. If an admonishment is not read properly or at all to the arrested driver, the additional penalties may not be included with the final sentence.

The DMV hearing officer must determine whether there was a refusal, and if there was a refusal, if an admonishment was properly given. This will determine the proper standards in which they can suspend or restrict a license, and the appropriate length if found guilty. When there has not been a refusal, the DMV officer will not go into the issue of admonishment of rights. It is irrelevant.

For example, Daisy has been arrested for a DUI. She was stopped for not stopping before taking a right turn at a red light. Officers believed she may be intoxicated and asked to take a blood alcohol test. She agreed and allowed the officers to take her blood. During her DMV hearing, the officer questioned Daisy about the right turn at a red light. The officer assessed whether this was what had happened using Daisy's testimony and the arresting officer's report. After having made a determination, she asked about the BAC test, which Daisy agreed to having taken. The officer ruled out any refusal issues, and then determined the outcome of the blood test.

In comparison, lets say that Daisy had refused to take the BAC test. The DMV hearing officer would still address the issue of whether Daisy had in fact failed to stop at a red light before making a right turn, and whether this constituted enough probable cause for the officer to stop her. However, the DMV officer will then ask why Daisy had refused to take the BAC test, and whether she had properly been read an admonishment of rights. Even if Daisy had attempted to take both tests, but was unable to do so, it will be considered a refusal.

When there is a refusal there are different issues to be addressed at a DMV hearing. There are also additional consequences to be considered. Many people believe that the DMV hearing is not as significant as the criminal court proceedings, but that is in fact not true. There should be a Los Angeles Criminal Defense lawyer representing a person's rights and interests at both types of hearings in order to keep penalties at a minimum and increase any chances of the case being dismissed.

When a person is arrested on suspicion on a DUI, they will have to appear before a criminal judge and at a DMV hearing. The criminal court will determine if there is enough evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that her person was intoxicated while driving. If they are found guilty, the court will determine an appropriate penalty that will involve a fine, probation and potential jail time. The DMV hearing will determine whether the person was driving while intoxicated as well, but if found guilty will only determine the consequences to driving privileges. The two are separate findings, one does not influence the other
.
During a DMV hearing, the hearing officer will introduce the police report that was prepared by the arresting officer. This will include a description of the events and any observations made by the officer. Also in the report will be the result of any blood alcohol content tests that were taken at the station the night of the arrest. The observations and accounts of the event made by the officer are generally taken with high credibility, and if challenged will required a significant amount of proof.

The driver is allowed to have a Los Angeles DUI Attorney be present at a DMV hearing and make an argument on their behalf. The attorney will often question the driver with the hearing officer present so that the person being charged can present their side of the story and have it go on record. This testimony will then be considered by the officer when making a decision.

Additionally, if the attorney advises that the blood alcohol test may have been corrupted, records may be collected regarding the maintenance and accuracy of the test. If it is a blood test, the results may be questioned and the lab may be asked to provide documents demonstrating their procedures to maintain the accuracy of the blood sample. If a breath test was taken , an attorney might request that documents be presented showing the maintenance and calibration of the breathalyzer to ensure that it produces accurate results.

If a lawyer presents a strong enough argument that casts doubt on the officer's report or reduces credibility, the DMV hearing officer may continue the hearing and schedule a date upon which the arresting officer can be present to testify. After all evidence has been collected and the DMV hearing officer has heard all testimony that is relevant to the case, he or she will make a decision regarding driving privileges.

The DMV hearing is as significant to the person's life as is the Criminal proceeding. The hearing is conducted in a manner which allows for evidence to be presented just as it is in criminal court. Many people believe the DMV hearing does not need an attorney and can be handled on their own. However, if an experienced Los Angeles DUI lawyer is present to make the proper arguments and present the right evidence, it may make a difference between having a restricted license, or a suspended license.

Contrary to what some people may think, a DUI case against a person is not dismissed based simply on the fact that there is no blood alcohol content (BAC) reading. Many people think that if they refuse to take a BAC test, then there is no evidence or proof against them that they were intoxicated while driving. Not only is this not the case, but it may lead to additional penalties if the person is found guilty.

When granted driving privileges in California, a person agrees to comply with authorities if stopped or questioned for a DUI. This implied consent is a silent acceptance when a person is issued a California driver's license. When a person refuses to take a BAC test it is a violation of the implied consent and is taken into serious consideration by legislation and the Courts.

This BAC test refusal does not lead to a dismissal of a case due to lack of evidence. There are other types of evidence that will be introduced in court by Prosecution that could lead to a conviction. The officer's report is considered evidence. It contains the arresting officer's observations and account of the night of the arrest. This is referred to as discovery. Observations made by the officer are held with high credibility and will be taken into consideration by the Judge as strong evidence of the driver's intoxication.

Officer's will note things such as slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, blurred vision, failure to properly comprehend instructions and statements made by the driver. Also included in the police report will be the reason the person was stopped and questioned for a DUI. An officer needs reasonable cause to pull someone over. This is usually a traffic violation; speeding, illegal u-turn, weaving between lanes, etc. It can also be a check in good faith if someone is pulled over at the side of the road. The circumstances for stopping or questioning a driver will be included in the report, and may be strong evidence of intoxication.

This may seem circumstantial and difficult to use in proving a DUI case, but in many cases can be enough. For example, Jill is weaving in and out of lanes, nearly missing cars and is pulled over by an officer. Upon arriving at Jill's window, the officer smells a strong odor of alcohol. He asks Jill if she has been drinking, and Jill responds with slurred speech that she only had a few Gin and Tonics at dinner. Jill is arrested and taken into custody where she refuses to take any BAC test and is properly read an admonishment of rights. Because Jill refuses to take a BAC test, there is no blood alcohol reading with which Prosecutors can prove her intoxication. However, the observations made by the officer and the statements made by Jill are strong and will likely lead to a conviction.

In comparison, Jack is pulled over for running a red light. Officers approach Jack and ask him if he has been drinking. Jack replies that he has not been drinking, apologizes and said that he had not slept in a few days and was in a hurry to get home. Officers do not smell any alcohol but Jack seems to be fidgety and his eyes look tired, and his vision is blurred. Officers ask Jack to take a field sobriety test which he refuses and is arrested. At the station the officers ask Jack to take a BAC test, which again he refuses. He is properly read his admonishment of rights for refusing. Although officer's stopped Jack for running a red light, that may be the only thing he will be found guilty of. The officer's observations may point to an intoxicated driver, but it isn't strong enough to provide enough evidence for a DUI.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that because there is no BAC reading, the DUI will be dismissed. Consult a knowledgeable Los Angeles attorney to review the police report and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your case.

During a routine DUI stop in Southern California, the officers will ask the driver to submit themselves for a field sobriety test. This is usually a breathalyzer test administered at the site of the stop and gives officers a preliminary idea regarding the person's blood alcohol content (BAC). This BAC test is not mandatory, and if completed, is completed as a courtesy and in an effort to cooperate with officers.

If a driver is taken into a police station on suspicion of the DUI, they will be offered a second BAC test, either blood or breath. The second test administered at the station is mandatory and refusal to do so can result in added penalties and consequences. When a driver is issued a California driver's license they agree to comply and cooperate with officers during any DUI stop. This includes submitting to a blood or breath test so that officers may collect an accurate reading for the person's blood alcohol content. This implied consent is an agreement between anyone with a valid driver's license and the State of California and if violated warrants significant consideration.

When a driver refuses to take a BAC test at the station, it is considered an enhancement to the DUI charge. An enhancement results in penalties in addition to those of a DUI without refusal. This includes a longer suspension of driving privileges, additional fines and mandatory jail time.

Due to the fact that there are additional penalties officers are required to read an admonishment of rights to any person who refuses to take a BAC test. An admonishment of rights advises the driver that there will be added penalties if they are found guilty of a DUI and advises them that they are required by law to take a test, and failing to do so is a violation of implied consent.

The admonishment of rights has to be read word for word and at a time when the arrested person fully understands what potential consequences may be for refusing to take a BAC test. Any failure on the part of authorities to inform a driver of their rights and the consequences of relinquishing these rights will be taken seriously by the court in the interest of protecting rights and the notion of justice.

If it is proven in court that an officer failed to properly read a driver an admonishment of their rights in refusing to take a BAC test, the refusal will not result in added penalties. For example, Dan is arrested on suspicion of a DUI and taken to a station. At the station he refuses to take any kind of BAC test, adamant that he has not drank anything and the officer's are wasting his time. Officers get busy with other inmates and in the meantime Dan falls asleep. The officers, meanwhile, read Dan an admonishment of his rights in refusing to take the BAC test and since he is asleep, skim most of the words and paraphrase. If Dan is found guilty of a DUI there will be no additional penalties due to a refusal because he was not properly read an admonishment of his rights.

Anytime there is a refusal in a DUI case, there is a potential for mandatory jail time. An experienced Los Angeles DUI lawyer has handled many refusals and successfully reduced any additional penalties as well as mandatory jail time. If you are facing a refusal, it is important to speak to a knowledgeable attorney that can help protect your rights and prepare a powerful defense.

If a person is charged with a DUI, and they refused to take a breath or blood test at the time of the arrest, they may face additional consequences if convicted. When a driver is issued a California license, they give implied consent to submit for a blood alcohol test if asked to do so by officers. When a person refuses to do so, they are violating this previously given consent, and the penalties are taken seriously by the DMV and the government.

Many of our clients do not explicitly refuse to take a blood or breath test, but are unable to do so for various reasons. For example, many people who are overwhelmed and stressed out find it difficult to calmly breathe into a breathalyzer to get an accurate result. Some have asthma and are unable to properly breathe into the machine. Those that are unable to take the breath test and provide usable results, must take the blood test as an alternative. But many times, the officials administering the blood test are unable to find a vein or collect a sample large enough. The driver may also have a fear of needles and cannot submit to the blood these. As a result, the person is unable to take the blood test or the breath test, but have cooperated and provided legitimate attempts to do so.

For example, say Sally is stopped for a DUI and is asked to take a BAC test. She has asthma and does not have her inhaler with her. She, nevertheless, tries to breathe into the machine in order to provide a sample but officers tell her that none of the attempts were valid. She is then asked to take a blood test since the breath test was not valid. They try to take her blood but cannot find a vein and after several attempts, fail at gathering a sample. Sally followed directions and tried to aid the officers in gathering a sample to the best of her ability, but because of uncontrollable factors she was unable to do so.

Unfortunately, the law does not make an exception for such a situation. It will still be charged as a refusal, and will lead additional consequences if convicted. When there is no reading of blood alcohol, whether it is a blood or breath reading, the law views it as a refusal. The reason as to why there was a refusal is irrelevant.

However, an experienced Los Angeles DUI Lawyer is able to use any cooperation on behalf of the client as a good faith support. A knowledgeable attorney will play up a strong argument that the driver attempted with good faith to take the test but was unable to do so due to factors out of their control. With the right powerful defense a DMV hearing officer, or a Criminal Judge may be sympathetic and appreciate the cooperation, reducing the additional penalties on account of the refusal.

When a person is stopped and asked to take a Blood Alcohol Test, a refusal to do so, may lead to serious consequences. When a person is granted the privileges of driving in California, along with the obligations and duties is implied consent to cooperate if a driver is questioned by officers regarding a possible DUI. By holding a valid driver's license, you are agreeing that if you are stopped by officers, you will comply with requests to take a breathalyzer or blood test in order to test your blood alcohol content (BAC). Refusing to take the BAC test will have serious consequences because you are going against your previously given consent.

During a DUI arrest, officers will administer BAC tests at two separate occasions. You will be given a field sobriety test at the scene of the stop when the officer initially questions the driver. The initial sobriety test is not required by law and will not have severe consequences for refusal. However, the breath or blood test you are asked to take after being taken into custody at the police station is required by law. You do have the right to refuse, but will face additional consequences if convicted of a DUI.

If you refuse to take the breath or blood test that is required, officers must admonish you of the consequences. They must read it verbatim from a form and have you sign it acknowledging that you understand the additional penalties you may face for having refused. If this form is not read and signed, there is a strong argument for any additional penalties incurred as a result of the refusal to be dismissed.

If a person refuses the BAC test after having been admonished of the possible additional consequences and they are convicted of a DUI, they will most likely be sentenced to mandatory jail time. Those that have opted to refuse the test may be looking at 48 hours of jail time and a year long suspension if they are a first time offender. Second time offenses may be sentenced for 96 hours of mandatory jail time and a 2 year license suspension. Third time offenders will be penalized with 10 days jail time and 3 years of license suspension.

These penalties are in addition to the general DUI sentence. The refusal is an enhancement that adds additional jail time, fines and length of license suspension to the general DUI penalties. For example, a woman is charged and convicted of a Southern California DUI for the first time. In addition to the DUI, the woman refused to take the breath or blood test at the station giving her the added enhancement of a refusal. The Judge sentences her to a day in jail and a fine of $1000 and probation. As a first time offender of a DUI she may be penalized a fine between $390 to $100 and very minimal jail time, if any. However, because she refused the BAC test, her jail time will be a 3 days (the one day and additional 48 hours) as well as the fine and probation. The DMV hearing will determine the suspension or revocation of driving privileges. What the DMV hearing officer decides will have an added suspension of one year if there was a refusal.

When you are arrested for a DUI, the consequences of a refusal are not something you think about. However, they do come up as an issue later on during the Criminal proceedings and the DMV hearing. An experienced Los Angeles DUI lawyer can prepare a powerful defense in your favor to help mitigate or dismiss the additional penalties.

California state law prohibits anyone from driving a motor vehicle when your driving ability is impaired under section 23152 (a) of the vehicle code. Drivers are also prohibited under section 23152 (b) of the vehicle code to drive a motor vehicle when their blood alcohol level is a .08% or more.

Whether you take a breath test or blood test after being stopped and arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, the seriousness of your case relies in great part on the readings obtained at the time that you were stopped and tested.

A criminal prosecution for this charge carries serious consequences including probation, fines in excess of $1500, required attendance at a lenghly alcohol program, and a range of other consequences.

The strength of the prosecution's case involving driving under the influence, is based on the probable cause for the stop, the driver's performance on a series of field sobriety tests, their blood-alcohol level, both at the scene, and at the station or hospital. The drivers record can also substantially affect the willingness of the prosecutor to reduce or dismiss any case.

The legal level of blood-alcohol as stated above is important as a benchmark for the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to negotiate. The closer the driver's blood-alcohol rate is to the legal limit, the weaker the prosecution's case. The higher the driver's blood-alcohol over legal limit can significantly build a stronger case for the prosecution who will seek greater penalties typically, then those cases involving lower readings.

There seems to be a growing trend in certain judicial districts, to file drunk driving charges even in cases where one of blood-alcohol is less than an 08%. Arthur recently was retained to represent a driver who although had a blood-alcohol rate of 07%/07% was charged with a 23152 (a) V C. In this case, our firm was able to persuade the prosecutor based upon our clients good record to dismiss the charges of DUI, and allow the driver to settle the case, but to a substantially lower charge.

Many different factors come together to affect the rate of alcohol absorption, how quickly it is distributed into your blood stream and how quickly it is eliminated from your body.

Alcohol absorption is affected by the food you have ingested and the type of drink. When food is eaten along with alcohol, the alcohol absorption is a lot slower and the blood alcohol concentration peak (the point of greatest intoxication) is generally achieved anywhere between an hour to six. For people who haven't had as much to eat, and are not eating along with their alcohol, the blood alcohol concentration peak is reached faster, generally in half an hour to two. The type of food ingested; fat, proteins or carbohydrates may have an effect on the quickness of absorption, but there is no concrete evidence. There is proof however, that the bigger the meal, and the closer in time to drinking that it is eaten, there is a slowing effect on alcohol absorption.

The stronger a drink is, the faster it will be absorbed by the body. Drinks that are generally between 10% and 30% of alcohol concentration will be most rapidly absorbed. Drinks that are less than 10% will take longer to be absorbed by the body.

The rate at which the alcohol is distributed into a person's blood stream depends on their body fat, type and weight. Persons with lower body fat percentages will have a lower blood alcohol content. For people who are the same weight, the person with the higher fat will have the higher BAC. Similarly, the less a person weighs, the more they will be affected by alcohol.

The liver is the organ responsible for eliminating alcohol from the body. Studies show that women eliminate alcohol from their systems 10% on average faster than men. Additionally, if a person is consuming alcohol at a higher rate than elimination, the BAC will be higher.

These are all things to take into account when a person is charged with a DUI. Consult a Los Angeles DUI Attorney to discuss the contents of an arrest report and the reading of the sobriety test. Oftentimes, there may be errors and the BAC may not be as high as it is documented. A knowledgeable attorney can expose the errors to the court, leading to a potential reduction or dismissal of the charge!

Client always asked me at our first consultation, whether or not it is possible to get the their recent DUI case dismissed. I provide each client with an honest answer, that is, it depends. The law requires that for a driver to be convicted of a driving under the influence charge, certain legal requirements must be properly proven.

Regardless of a drivers blood alcohol level at the time that they were stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence, the police must legally justify a traffic stop by specifically identifying the vehicle code violation committed by the driver which gives rise to a lawful stop. This critical foundation is known as the principle of probable cause. Essentially, every DUI stop is required to have sufficient probable cause, or legal reason.

The absence of probable cause requires dismissals are granted, when it is determined by a prosecutor, judge, or jury that the officer lacked probable cause to justify a stop. Our firm recently represented a client who was stopped by the police for driving without his rear license plate illuminated. The driver was arrested for DUI because he had a blood alcohol reading of .18, over two times the legal limit. This case was ultimately dismissed on a defense motion when the driver and two passengers contested the police allegation regarding the light. The judge determined that the officer lacked probable cause to stop the driver because he believed that there was in fact a working license plate light as testified by the driver and his witness/passengers.

Another powerful argument for dismissal can be based upon the fact that although the breathalyzer machine that the driver was tested on appeared to be working, the maintenance and accuracy records obtained through subpoena showed a different story. A careful review showed a flawed and questionable accuracy of the machine that tested our clients breath for alcohol content. These independent maintenance and accuracy records showed an unacceptable percent of error uncovered by an independent agency trained to determine the accuracy of all tests performed by the police department.

A drivers blood alcohol level is the cornerstone of the prosecutor's case. When this essential building block, it determined to be unreliable, it creates an irreparable flaw in the states case which ultimately leads to a dismissal by the prosecutor.

The above reasons, are but a few of the challenges that are put to the prosecutors, making them prove their case by justifying that the police be held to the highest constitutional standards of law.

This is a very good question. There are two kinds of chemical tests under California state law to determine a driver's blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time he was stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both. Until recently, there was also a urine test which was part of the drivers choice of tests. This test after many years. was eliminated by the legislature due to their determination that this type of test did not meet the high standards of accuracy required by the law.

There are two remaining tests which a suspected drunk driver has to chose from. These tests are the blood and breath tests. The blood test, which most experts view as the more accurate of the two because this test essentially through a direct analysis, measures the percentage of alcohol in the blood drawn from a suspected driver.The result is a blood alcohol concentration or bac which is directly correlated to the language of the law prohibiting blood-alcohol levels of .08 or over.

In addition, if the suspected driver is also under the influence of a drug, a blood test or urine test is the only way to determine their presence. A breath test is only capable of measuring alcohol.

The breath test, has been determined by the federal government under title 17 to be sufficiently accurate for blood-alcohol testing of suspected DUI drivers. Current models of these sophisticated machines have a very high accuracy rating, although require regular and frequent maintenance and calibration to be reliable. It has been determined that these machines have .02 allowable error range.These machines use heated gases and other very sophisticated techniques to convert one's breath into a blood-alcohol reading to be measured against the requirements of the law. These breath testing machines are subject to a variety of possible errors that make it more susceptible to generating inaccurate and erroneous results. There are two common types of errors. Operator errors occur when the officer fails to follow the specific steps prior to using the machine.

One example is that title 17 requirement that the driver be observed continuously for at least 15 minutes before the test is given. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the machine from reading possible mouth alcohol present either from recent drinking or coughing, belching or regurgitating prior to the test which could overstate blood-alcohol present.This second type of error is also very common.

Our firm of DUI specialists, carefully inspect for each DUI case we defend the maintenance and accuracy logs before and after our clients has blown in to this machine. These errors can get cases dismissed or reduced in Court.

There is nothing illegal about drinking alcohol. There or is also nothing illegal about drinking alcohol and driving. It is only against the law to drive a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level (BAC) of .08% or more.

The state of California created this law under section 23152 of the vehicle code. This law has a number of different sections which make it illegal to drive a motor vehicle under certain circumstances. 23152 (a) V.C. prohibits any person to drive a car when their driving ability is impaired by either alcohol or drugs or the combination. 23152 (b) V.C. prohibits driving by those people who have a blood-alcohol level of .08% or more.

When I asked my clients how much they have had to drink, the most common response is with a number. For example, clients will tell me they had a couple of drinks, a few glasses of champagne etc. Our average client speaks of their drinks like they were all the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. This oversimplification, is what commonly gets my clients in trouble. Although, counting and keeping track of what one has to drink is important, what you are drinking is just, and maybe more important than just the number.

Be very careful, drinking beer which has an alcohol content of 12 -14% is not remotely the same as vodka, whiskey, or rum which can have 30% or more by volume of alcohol. Wine, like beer has a much lower alcohol content than other hard liquors. A driver who consumes three shots of tequila will have a much higher blood-alcohol level than one who consumes three glasses of wine or beer.

Mixed drinks can also get people in trouble, because unless you are making the drink yourself, you can never be certain of the amount of actual alcohol being mixed in your drink. For example, while drinking at a bar or restaurant, one drink could actually have two or more ounces of alcohol, while you're counting it as one drink.

It is also prudent and helpful to always combine food when you are drinking. The benefit of food is that it helps the body absorb the alcohol, and then eliminate the alcohol reducing your blood alcohol level (BAC) should you be stopped and ultimately tested by the police. All food is not created equally for the purpose of expediting, or speeding up the process of absorbing alcohol that has been consumed. Typical bar food, like pretzels, peanuts, and tortilla chips and salsa are not a lot of help. Studies have shown that protein rich foods like chicken, beef, and pork, as well as vegetables and protein dramatically increase the body's absorption of alcohol quicker. Also spacing of your drinks helps a lot too.

If you have been charged with a DUI and at the time of your arrest you refused to take a chemical test, then the consequences regarding your license may vary. A DMV hearing must be scheduled within ten days of your arrest. At the DMV hearing, an officer will review the facts of your case and determine what sanctions to impose on your license, if any. You have the right to have an attorney appear on your behalf at a DMV hearing.

If you refused to take a Chemical test that would allow the arresting officer to gather evidence regarding your Blood Alcohol Content, your potential consequences will differ from those that submit to the Chemical Test. You have a right to refuse to take the initial chemical test administered at the scene, but generally must comply with the test given at the station.

If you are over 21 years of age, and have been arrested the DMV may suspend your license for one year on a first time offense. For a second offense, you license may result in a two year revocation. For any third of fourth time offense, your license will result in a three year revocation.

For those that are under the age of 21 the potential consequences will be similar. An experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense attorney may be hired, not only for appearances in court, but also to appear on your behalf for a DMV hearing. Your license is a crucial necessity in your day to day activities, and must be protected. Allow an attorney who is familiar with the process and has dealt with officers for over thirty years help prepare a powerful argument on your behalf that will ensure you don't have your license suspended for the full time period suggested by the legislation.