Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The California Highway Patrol plans increased patrols state-wide for the duration of the Labor Day weekend to deter drunk driving. The heightened enforcement period begins this evening at 6:00 PM and continues until midnight on Monday, September 6. If you've driven on Sacramento's freeways today, you've already seen the electronic message signs flashing the admonition to motorists to call 911 if they see a drunk driver.

Locally, the Sacramento Police Department has announced a DUI and driver's license checkpoint at Florin Road and 24th Street, beginning at 8:30 PM and running until early Saturday morning.

Do what it takes to keep yourself and others safe this holiday weekend. If you plan on going out drinking, choose a designated driver before you leave your house or apartment. Also, take sufficient cash to pay for a cab if necessary. And, above all, look after your friends and family and keep them from getting behind the wheel if they've had too much to drink.

"Sobriety and Drivers License Checkpoint Notification," Sacramento Police Department, September 2, 2010

"CHP Prepares to Launch Statewide DUI Crackdown," Lake County News, August 31, 2010

Brandon Mullock, the Sacramento police officer arrested in January for brandishing a firearm while off-duty - and since that incident accused of filing falsified reports on DUI arrests - has resigned. Mullock had been on administrative leave since his arrest.

During its investigation of the January arrest, the Sacramento Police Department discovered irregularities in reports filed by Mullock on several DUI cases. Specifically, the details in Mullock's reports differed from the evidence provided by audio and video recordings made by equipment in Mullock's police vehicle.

The Sacramento District Attorney's Office has already dismissed charges in two of those cases, and nearly 200 more of Mullock's DUI arrests are under review. The DA's Office is not able to say at this point how many other cases will be affected.

A hearing on the reviewed cases has been scheduled for September 17 at 1:30 PM in department 9 of the Sacramento county courthouse.

Mullock had been with the department for three years and a member of the DUI task force since October 2009.

"Officer Resigns after Criminal Investigation," Sacramento Police Department new release, August 31, 2010

"Prosecutors review nearly 200 cases tied to former officer," Sacramento Bee, August 31, 2010

In recent posts we've covered separately Miranda rights and California DUI law. It's important to be aware, however, how Miranda applies to DUI, including some important limitations.

People often ask these questions: "When I was arrested for DUI, the officer did not read me my Miranda rights. Isn't that a violation of police procedure? Doesn't that somehow compromise the prosecution's case?"

The answers to those questions are usually no and no. Here's why.

Your Miranda rights are the following:

• you have the right to remain silent;
• any statements you make may be used against you in a court of law;
• you have the right to an attorney;
• if you can't afford an attorney, the court will appoint one.

This Miranda warning concerns your rights when two conditions are met: first, you are in police custody (i.e., you've been arrested and detained); second, you are being subjected to an interrogation (the police are asking you questions about the alleged crime).

If the police pull you over for suspicion of DUI, they will pose a series of questions to determine if you are impaired. These questions are considered an investigation that precedes an arrest. Keep in mind the conditions listed above that require police to advise you of your Miranda rights: arrest, detention, and interrogation. Pre-arrest investigative questions generally do not constitute a Miranda violation.

It's also important to understand that any comments you make during a casual conversation with the officer may be used against you. For example, let's say that you talk with the officer while being transported from the arrest scene to the jail. If you volunteer information, then Miranda does not apply.

Finally, if you are pulled over for suspicion of DUI, you are within your rights to inform the officer that you do not wish to answer any questions. If the police wish to interrogate you, a Miranda warning should be given and you should seek the advice of an attorney before answering any questions.

If you have any questions about DUI and Miranda rights, call the Law Office of Nancy King at (916) 442-1200.

The arrest in May of Sacramento Kings star Tyreke Evans for driving 130 miles an hour on Interstate 80 threw a spotlight on speeding and reckless driving on Sacramento's freeways - and the penalties that come with a conviction. The Sacramento Bee's Tony Bizjak published an article on Monday detailing the surprising number of people cited for excessive speed (Vehicle Code 22348) and reckless driving (Vehicle Code 23103). It turns out that over 80 people were issued citations by CHP for driving in excess of 100 MPH in May and June on freeways in Sacramento and Stockton.

Speeding and reckless driving convictions come with costly penalties. VC 22348 says that a first conviction for excessive speed (over 100 miles per hour) results in a $500 fine and loss of driving privileges for 30 days, with the amount fines and length of license suspension increasing with each conviction. A reckless driving conviction under VC 23103 can be punished by up to 90 days in county jail and/or fines up to $1000.

If you've been cited for excessive speed or reckless driving, contact the Law Office of Nancy King at (916) 442-1200 for a free consultation.

Triple Digit Speeders Surprising in Number, CHP Figures Show, Sacramento Bee, August 9, 2010

Three local police departments have announced that they will be conducting traffic checkpoints the night of Friday, July 13. The Sacramento, Folsom, and Rancho Cordova police departments are all using grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to fund these efforts to check drivers for sobriety, as well as valid driver's licenses.

Folsom PD will run its checkpoint from 7:00 PM to 3:00 AM and Rancho Cordova PD will run its from 8:00 PM to 2:00 PM. Sacramento PD has not stated when its checkpoint will begin and end. At this point, the precise locations for each checkpoint have not been made public.

As always, we advise you to take the steps necessary to keep yourself and others safe if you plan on going out drinking tomorrow night. That means, choose a designated driver, put taxi phone numbers into your cell phone, hire a limo, or take public transportation. Police and prosecutors in the Sacramento region treat DUIs severely. A few minutes spent planning or a few dollars spent on transportation can save you a lot of money and aggravation by avoiding arrest for driving while intoxicated.

If you have any questions about California's DUI laws, call the Law Office of Nancy King at (916) 442-1200.

Folsom PD press release
Sacramento PD press release
Rancho Cordova press release

The Folsom Police Department announced that it will conduct a DUI checkpoint beginning at 7:00 PM on Friday, April 9, and ending at 3:00 AM on Saturday, April 10. The location was not disclosed in the department's press release.

Funding for the checkpoint comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the California Office of Traffic Safety. The checkpoint will be staffed by Folsom Police Department officers, with assistance from Citizens Assisting Public Safety volunteers and a Community Service Officer.

As we always advise when providing information about sobriety checkpoints, take the steps necessary to keep yourself and others safe if you plan on consuming alcohol. Choose a designated driver before leaving your house or apartment, put taxi phone numbers into the address book of your mobile phone, or even hire a driver for the evening.

Finally, keep in mind that arrest for DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) is possible after use of legal medications if those substances impair your ability to safely operate a vehicle. Be aware of the effects that medications have on you and ask a family member or friend to drive for you if necessary.

If you have questions about this topic, or any other topic in our blog, call the Law Office of Nancy King at (916) 442-1200.

Our last post covered the similarities and differences between a DUI involving alcohol and a DUI involving drugs. Today's post explains the role of the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) in DUID.

Typically, a DUID evaluation begins after a driver has been pulled over for erratic driving and the officer, after administering a breath alcohol test, determines that the driver has not ingested alcohol.

In DUID cases, law enforcement relies on two things: 1) blood or urine tests to determine if drugs are present in the person's system, and 2) observations of the person's physical condition and behavior. Because of the technical nature of this type of investigation and evidence, police and the CHP rely on Drug Recognition Experts, or DREs, officers who receive special training in recognition of the influence of drugs.

The DRE follows a 12-step protocol to assess the situation:

1. Breath alcohol test
2. Interview of the arresting officer
3. Preliminary examination and first pulse reading
4. Eye examination
5. Divided attention psychophysical tests similar to field sobriety tests
6. Vital signs and second pulse reading
7. Examination of eye pupils
8. Examination of muscle tone
9. Check for injection sites and third pulse reading
10. Subject's statements and other observations
11. Analysis and opinions of the evaluator
12. Toxicological examination from urine, blood, or saliva

If the officer making the traffic stop is trained as a DRE, he simply follows the 12-step protocol. If he isn't a DRE, he calls for one to come to the scene to conduct the investigation. The DRE's evaluation is then used by the district attorney's office in its attempt to gain a conviction.

If no DRE is available, the arresting officer takes detailed notes of what he observed. If the case goes to trial in that instance, the district attorney can have a DRE testify as an expert witness and give his or her interpretation of the arresting officer's notes. But without direct evaluation by a DRE, conviction of DUID becomes much more difficult.

All of the issues highlighted in the previous post regarding defense against DUID charges are pertinent to the DRE's evaluation. The rate at which drugs leave the system, impairment through use of medications, the role of fatigue and emotional distress, and inconsistencies in the application of the 12-step protocol by the DRE should all be evaluated by your attorney in devising a defense strategy.

Call Nancy King at 916-442-1200 if you have questions about DREs, DUID, or other topics discussed in this blog.

The section of the California Vehicle Code that governs driving under the influence of alcohol also sets the rules for driving under the influence of drugs, or DUID. But DUID cases differ from alcohol related cases in several important respects, each of which influences the defense that can be mounted against the charges.

When someone is cited for driving under the influence of alcohol, two criminal charges are filed: 23152 (a) and 23152 (b). Section (a) declares that, "It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, to drive a vehicle." Section (b) makes it illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater.

Driving under the influence of drugs lacks the specific measure of intoxication laid out in section (b). Therefore, conviction of DUID rests solely on law enforcement's ability to demonstrate that a person's capacity to operate a vehicle safely was impaired by the presence of drugs in his or her system. In other words, all DUID cases rely solely on section (a) and its prohibition of driving under the influence of a drug.

It is important to note that DUID can arise from impairment by both legal and illegal drugs. Use of marijuana or methamphetamines can lead to arrest for DUID, but so can use of prescription and non-prescription painkillers, anti-depressants, allergy medications, antibiotics, or any other drug. Any chemical that diminishes a person's ability to safely operate a vehicle can be used as the basis for arrest and conviction for DUID.

Continue reading "Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID)" »

A report by California Watch and UC Berkeley's Investigative Reporting Program documents the growing number of car impoundments at police checkpoints throughout the state, and presents compelling evidence that this increase has been motivated in large part by the resulting revenue that flows to cash strapped local governments.

Checkpoints conducted by the CHP and local police have increased dramatically in recent years as a means to combat DUI. But many police agencies don't just check drivers' sobriety. They also ask to see a driver's license, and if they find an unlicensed driver, they impound the car for 30 days.

The constitutional problem is this: the Federal Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2005 that such impoundments constitute an "unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment . . . if the only justification is that the driver is unlicensed." CHP has ceased impounding vehicles since that ruling, but many police agencies - including the Sacramento Police Department - continue the practice.

At checkpoints last year throughout the state, 24,000 cars were impounded, nearly 8 times the number of DUI arrests made. And the irony is that while an unlicensed driver loses his car for 30 days, a drunk driver can retrieve his car after only one day.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that a person who leaves her driver's license at home and goes through a checkpoint will have her car impounded. The focus is on people who are not legally licensed to drive.

Many of those drivers who have their cars impounded are illegal immigrants who simply abandon their vehicles in impoundment. The sale of those vehicles results in additional revenue to local governments.

All of this adds up to big money. In 2009, towing fees, fines, and car auctions generated $40 million, split between towing companies and local agencies. Additionally, $30 million, provided by the California Office of Traffic Safety, went to pay for police overtime to staff the checkpoints.

The Ninth Circuit Court is expected to make another ruling on this issue later this year. We hope that they make it clear that these impoundments violate the Constitution's protection against unreasonable seizures.

"Car seizures at DUI checkpoints prove profitable for cities, raise legal questions," Ryan Gabrielson, California Watch, February 13, 2010

This Friday, December 18, the Sacramento Police Department will conduct a sobriety and drivers license checkpoint in south Sacramento, while CHP will have one in Rancho Cordova. These are the first of at least eight traffic screenings that law enforcement in the Sacramento region plans over the next two weeks.

Sacramento drivers are receiving particular scrutiny because of data showing that Sacramento ranks at the top of U.S. cities larger than a population of 250,000 in terms of injuries and fatalities caused by alcohol-related traffic accidents.

We strongly advise everyone to not drive after consuming alcohol or ingesting narcotics. The risk of injury to yourself and others is real, and the legal consequences can be severe. Moreover, California law enforcement conducts more DUI checkpoints than any other state and that number is only going to increase throughout 2010, dubbed by public safety agencies as the "Year of the Checkpoint." With district attorney's offices and courts pushing for harsher and harsher penalties for drunk drivers, you are well served to do whatever it takes to keep yourself and family and friends from driving while intoxicated. See our December 11 and August 18 posts for more information.

If you or someone you know is cited for a DUI, get experienced and knowledgeable legal representation. Contact the Law Office of Nancy King if you have any questions.

Sobriety and Drivers License CheckPoint Notification, Sacramento Police Department

CHP to conduct DUI checkpoint on Friday in Sacramento County, Sacramento Bee, December 16, 2009

More checkpoints bolster statewide, Sacramento DUI push, Sacramento Bee, December 17, 2009

Among the most common interactions between citizens and police are traffic stops. Many of these are straightforward: a driver is speeding or doesn't heed a traffic signal and receives a citation from a police, sheriff, or CHP officer. Though the driver is irritated and out a few hundred dollars, nothing more serious results.

Some stops go beyond this, though, with charges of more serious crimes. This is where knowledge of probable cause and rules of search and seizure is so important.

Let's say that while driving home one night you're pulled over by your local police. Because of constitutional protections, police can't pull you over, detain you, or question you just because they feel like it. For an officer to initiate a traffic stop, he has to have probable cause, or some evidence that a crime has been, or is being, committed. (See our October 28 post for a general discussion of probable cause.) That means that he has to see you committing a traffic violation - e.g., driving too fast, weaving, rolling through a stop sign - or observe that some equipment on your car, like a brake light, isn't working.

Assume that the police do have probable cause to pull you over - your left front headlight is out - and during the course of this traffic stop, the officer asks for permission to search the car. Do you have to say yes? The short answer is, NO, and we advise clients to politely but clearly state something like, "I do not give my consent to a search of my vehicle." When police lack probable cause to search your vehicle, they must let you go on your way. Moreover, the officer is not allowed to hold your refusal against you.

Under some circumstances, though, police may conduct a vehicle search without your permission and without a warrant.

Though the Fourth Amendment appears to require that police obtain a warrant to conduct a search, the reality is not so simple. A traffic stop is one of those times when police may, depending on the circumstances, conduct a warrantless search.

The law is complex and ever changing on this issue, but there are some key guidelines to keep in mind. In Carroll v. United States (1925) the U.S. Supreme Court established the principle that police may conduct warrantless searches of motor vehicles if probable cause exists that evidence of a crime is present. The justification for this is that since motor vehicles are mobile, evidence could be carried away and disposed of if police were required to go off and ask a judge for a warrant. In California v. Acevedo (1991), the Court extended the scope of searches to include containers in a vehicle, again because the evidence in the container could be driven away and disposed of. Some limits on warrantless searches were articulated by the Court in Arizona v. Gant (2009) when it ruled that once a person has been arrested and moved away from the vehicle, police may not initiate a search unless that search pertains to evidence related to the crime for which the person was arrested. (See our detailed discussion of Arizona v. Gant in our August 23 post.)

The principles to keep in mind are (1) any warrantless search of a vehicle requires probable cause, and (2) without probable cause police must obtain your permission to conduct a search.

If you have questions or concerns about a traffic stop conducted by the police, sheriff, or CHP, call the Law Office of Nancy King.