Los Angeles DUI Lawyer Blog

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.

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.

When many of our clients are arrested for a DUI, they are not given a specific reason for being stopped. When a cop pulls you over, he must have a valid reason for doing so. Furthermore, if an alcohol screening test is administered, he must have probable cause.

When a cop initially indicates that you pull over, he must have a valid reason. This reason can be as simple as a broken taillight, or something as serious as swerving in and out of lanes. An officer cannot make assumptions that you may be intoxicated and they cannot pull you over if there is no reason for them to do so. For example, if you are driving and you run a red light, the officer has a reason to stop you. Similarly, if you do not signal, or make an illegal U-turn, the officer has a valid reason to pull you over.

Once the officer pulls you over, he may ask you to complete a preliminary alcohol screening test only if he has reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is facts or circumstances that lead the officer to believe that you may under the influence. For example, if you are slurring, the officer has reasonable suspicion to question you regarding your impairment. If you exhibit no behavior that could indicate intoxication, the officer does not have the authority to ask you to take an alcohol screening test.

When the officer has not given a specific reason for why you are stopped, there is a potential weakness in Prosecution's case. An experienced San Diego DUI Attorney knows the requisite elements for the government to file a DUI case against you. They can prepare a powerful defense that will demonstrate to the court that a case for driving under the influence was not established.

Police officers are always right... wrong! At Hoffman and Associates, our law firm has successfully defended thousands of driving under the influence cases. One of our effective strategies is to attack and challenge the credibility of the officers observations, statements and conclusions being used against our clients.

You may be unlucky enough to have been stopped by the police for allegedly committing a vehicle code violation, but it is not necessarily true. The main thrust of an officer's education at the Academy is how to build a case against suspected violators. Officers are taught from the beginning that they must always justify and build a case.

One of the major areas of challenging the officers observations is to point out to the prosecutor, judge or jury, that although the officer will testify from the witness stand, or by the statements in police reports, that his credibility must be established like any other witness, despite the fact that he is a police officer.

Prosecutors, like police officers, like to act like these observations are completely objective, and accurate without question. Nothing is further from the truth. An officers observations and conclusions are really nothing more than subjective. The difference is very significant. Clearly subjective opinions by all people, including police officers, must be considered by looking at their personal influence that could motivate anyone to color their opinion. These types of statements he are much more susceptible to error.

An example of these concepts is the fact that in defending thousands of drivers stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence, I have rarely ever seen an arrest report where the driver successfully passed all of these coordination or field sobriety tests. Since the officer has probably never met the suspected driver before the night of the arrest, she has no idea of that persons coordination or ability without any alcohol to compare his coordination at the time of his stop.

Considering the diversity in alleged DUI drivers performance on different field sobriety tests, why is there a common and universal type language, used in almost all police reports. Slurred speech, red watery bloodshot eyes is always present.

Showing the similarity of the officer's statements in a majority of his arrest attack the accuracy of his observations and erodes the credibility of the officers testimony. It is essential that you or your legal counsel carefully scrutinize the accuracy of this critical evidence being presented against you.

The credibility or believability of an officer saw summations and statements should never be considered totally accurate or correct. It is essential that all statements declare fully scrutinized and challenge by her attorney in a DUI or other criminal case.

Very often when our attorneys are reviewing police reports with our clients, major and minor factual discrepancies appear with no rational explanation. Although it's easy to assume that the clients, or person being charged with the offense is lying or fabricating to make themselves look better. There is often another reasonable explanation.

Although police officers are employed to protect and serve the community, and hold themselves out as neutral and unbiased people, that is not always the case. Police officers also have an agenda... that is to build a criminal case against a suspect who he has determined to be guilty.

Unfortunately, that is often not true. Officers frequently make errors in judgment, make flawed observations, as well as mistakes in identification. Officers are subject like anyone else to make the same kind of errors, and their conduct should always be carefully scrutinize by the same standard any other witnes

For example, in a DUI case, once a police officer suspects someone as a DUI driver, he rarely considers any other alternative explanation for their impairment. Sickness or other physical disabilities are rarely considered as an explanation for their conduct or unsatisfactory performance.

Police officers are goal oriented, and strive to build a case against a suspected drunk driver, often making errors in observations, as well as interpretations of what they see. In truth, they are not unbiased, or neutral observers. This is critical when your face with a serious ramifications of arrests. We feel that a drivers recollection of the events are just as valuable, as that of any officer. It is critical that you consult an experienced Los Angeles DUI lawyer who can challenge the truth of any observations or conclusions, and fight for truth to prevail.

The officer's observations in the police reports that he completes after an arrest, are the basis for determining the relative strength or weakness of the state of California's case against you.

In a driving under the influence arrest, the first critical element to evaluate is whether the officers had probable cause to stop you. In a DUI case, the more vehicle code violations the officers cite in their report create a stronger case for the prosecution. Vehicle code violations such as technical violations, like no license plates, or a tail light out although valid probable cause, create a weaker case for the prosecution.

Vehicle code violations like weaving, lane Straddling, or driving on the wrong side of the street, create a stronger case for the prosecution since they add a link for the prosecutor to build a case of a impaired driving.

Although citations for alleged violations are generally not issued for each separate violation, the officer is always seeking to list as many possible violations to build a stronger case against you. Eventhough a ticket typically is not issued at the time of arrest for any DUI, don't be surprised that the officer had listed each and every violation he claims he saw in your police report. Carefully reviewing this report can make you and your attorney aware of the numerous discrepancies contained in the report.

The field sobriety tests, or coordination tests are given by the police officer as a building block to show your lack of coordination and impairment related performance. Although it is always good to be cooperative, it is also important to know what is legally required, and that which is not. These field sobriety tests are not required by law, and since 90% of all drivers completing these do not pass in the officer's eyes, there seems little advantage to agreeing to perform these tests, which are challenging without consuming alcohol.

Your blood-alcohol testing or BAC level, is the contents of your alcohol level determined by a breath or blood test. You have a choice of completing either of these tests, and although the choice is yours, the law requires that you complete at least one of these tests when requested by a police officer who suspects that you have been driving under the influence.

The higher your blood-alcohol level above the legal limit of .08% creates a stronger case against you. Your statements about what alcohol you have consumed, or your admissions to feeling buzzed or impaired, rarely are favorable to making you look better. It is always good to refrain from making additional statements which further corroborate the officers observation about your level of impairment. Don't help the prosecutor build a stronger case against you.

When you are pulled over on suspicion of driving while intoxicated there are several requirements that you must comply with. Knowing what you must do and what you have the right to refuse will better your chances of fighting a DUI case and will help weaken the government's case.

A preliminary screening test is not required by law. If the officer asks you to take a test that will give a reading on your Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) at the site of the alleged DUI, this is upon your volition. It is not required that you take this test, you can choose to wait until you reach the station.

It is necessary that you provide the arresting officer with your basic information. This may include showing him or her a form of ID, insurance information and current address and phone number. The law requires that you have to provide this to the arresting officer and may not refuse to do so.

Additionally, when taken to the station you are required to take a blood or breath test to determine your BAC. Unlike the test administered at the site of the arrest, this one is required. You do not have the option to decline the sobriety test at the police station.

Furthermore, admissions or statements at the time of arrest do not have to be given. You do not have to admit to any kind of drinking or even disclose that you were drinking. The arresting officer may ask you questions regarding what you were drinking, how much and what not. The law does not require that you answer these questions, and you may remain silent until you are in court and/ or have an attorney present.

It is important to know what is required of you when stopped for a DUI. An experienced California DUI attorney can help prepare a strong case based on the facts. Knowing your rights and what you may refuse to do, will help the attorney weaken the government's case and assure that you get the best possible outcome.

For the government to create a strong DUI case against you , the case needs to have all requisite elements which create the Prima Facie case. There must be proper probable cause and a Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) that can be considered illegal under the appropriate vehicle code.

Probable cause is a complicated element. It is most commonly established by the manner in which you are caught driving. An experienced California DUI attorney has seen a plentitude of driving situations which have led to a DUI arrest and knows how to present the case so that it is most advantageous to the client. These are the benefits of hiring an attorney that not only specializes in DUI arrests, but has plenty of experience and knows how to handle each situation before the Judge.

Furthermore, there must be a BAC that is over the legal limit. Vehicle Codes 23152 and 23153 dictate the legal BAC. While the legal limit under VC 23152 (b) and 23153 (b) is set at .08%, it is possible to be charged with a lower BAC under section (a) of both sections of the Vehicle Code.

You may be arrested with a BAC of .07% and feel as if the government has no case against you, because you were under the legal limit. However, this is not the case. You may be charged under section (a) of VC 23152 or VC 23153 which provides no limit. This will be a charge recommended by the arresting officer. The case will then be sent to the prosecutor's office, and they will decide whether the case has strong merits to be taken further, or whether it will be dismissed.

An attorney who is focused on DUI defense can argue in your favor to show that a case under a BAC of .08% should be dropped. Additionally, experience will help an attorney know exactly when the elements of a DUI case have not been established and highlight the weaknesses in the government's case to the Judge. This will not only provide you with representation that you have confidence in, but also a high percentage that your case will have lower penalties, and possibly even be dismissed.

In order for the government to establish a DUI case against you they must meet all elements of a California DUI case. One of these is that the government must prove that you were driving while you had a Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) significant enough to warrant arrest. There are many different ways the prosecutor can prove driving, some situations more complicated and more difficult to prove than others.

The first, and the easiest is if you are driving and are pulled over. There are several situations in which directly caught driving will warrant for you to be pulled over and questioned in regards to a DUI. The arresting officer may pull you over for any vehicle code violation whether it is related to alcohol impairment or not. This will provide sufficient probable cause for the arresting officer to investigate for a DUI. When you are pulled over while driving and consequently investigated and arrested for a DUI, the prosecution will have no problem proving that your were driving while intoxicated.

When it isn't directly observed driving, it opens the door for more complicated arguments and perhaps a weaker case. When this is the situation, the prosecutor has to build the case circumstantially. They will have to create their case based on the surrounding facts, looking at any witnesses and statements made by the driver. If there are people who saw you driving and are willing to attest to that fact, the case becomes stronger for the prosecution. If you are found sleeping in the car at the side of the road, with the keys in the ignition and the radio on, the facts point to a strong presumption that you were driving. In contrast, if you are parked in a parking lot, sleeping in the back seat with the keys in your pocket, the government will find it more difficult to prove that you were driving and will have a weaker case.

There are innumerable situations, which create a diverse amount of arguments that can be made by both sides. An experienced attorney will know exactly how to present the facts so as to create the strongest possible case for you. Get the help you need to make sure the prosecutor will not present the facts in an unfavorable light to you, and get an attorney that will confidently weaken the government's case and present the facts to strengthen the defense.

A requisite element to be found guilty of and charged with a California DUI is valid probable cause. An officer has valid probable cause if he observes any Vehicle Code Violation whether it has to do with alcohol impairment or not.

Direct and blatant violations such as weaving, failing to stop at a stop sign, or an expired license, will establish probable cause as required by law. Arresting officers are trained to look for these common violations to pull someone over and issue a citation. More often than not, people are stopped for a simple violation that has nothing to do with drinking. It can be as simple as being pulled over for a broken taillight and the officer will notice symptoms of alcohol such as red watery eyes, slurred speech or odor of alcohol in the car on the person and will initiate a DUI investigation.

In contrast to direct vehicle code violations, in certain situations probable cause is not required. An exception to probable cause is during a welfare check. If you are pulled over at the side of the road, fighting with someone in your car or even if you have a flat tire, a police officer will stop to see if you need help and if you are okay. This is considered a welfare check conducted by the police officer as part of his duty to check upon the welfare of the general public. If the officer conducts a welfare check and notices that you exhibit symptoms of being intoxicated, he will also conduct a DUI investigation. In instances where you are arrested for a DUI during a welfare check, the legal requirement of probable cause is not necessary.

Similarly, any kind of accident regardless of fault will also be an exception to the legal requirement of probable cause. Probable cause is a complicated requirement and can in many ways help weaken the prosecution's case for a DUI. Additionally, it can make it a harder case to win if probable cause is not required. A Los Angeles DUI attorney who has the experience and has argued thousands of cases, each with a unique set of facts establishing probable cause will know precisely how to prepare your case so that it presents the strongest argument possible. If probable cause is weak and the legal requirement is not met, the better chances your case has of either being dismissed or given a lower sentence. Make sure you have someone on your side who understands the ins and outs of your case and who not only sees your positive qualities but assures that the Judge does too.