San Diego DUI Lawyer Center

Careful - do not make any unsafe turning movements in San Diego or you may face a DUI

2008-05-13T09:38:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI lawyer info

May 13, 2008

San Diego DUI Stop Based on any "Unsafe Turning Movement"

San Diego Drunk Driving Police Officers can legally pull a person over for just about any violation of the California Vehicle Code as an excuse to investigate whether the driver of the vehicle is San Diego DUI or Drunk Driving.

A typical violation San Diego DUI officers utilize as probable cause to pull vehicles over to investigate a San Diego DUI is Vehicle Code Section 22107:

"No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement."

San Diego drivers do NOT have to use their turn signals (blinkers) unless there is another vehicle that could be affected by your turning movement.

San Diego DUI police sometimes do not understand this provision in the code and think that you must always use your turn signal when changing lanes or turning. San Diego Drunk Driving Police who use this excuse to pull over San Diego DUI drivers often neglect to mention in their San Diego DUI report whether there was another vehicle that could have been affected by that vehicle's turning movement.

You should change lanes or make turns after using your signal. But if you are accused of changing lanes without signalling, and are arrested for a San Diego DUI, you should hire an experienced and knowledgeable San Diego DUI Lawyer to handle your case.

San Diego DUI Attorneys:

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney Q. and A.

2008-05-12T16:19:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney Q. and A.

www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/faq-california-dui-attorney.html

May 12, 2008

Do I have a choice of a San Diego California DUI chemical tests?

Yes. When a person is arrested in San Diego California for a San Diego DUI, he or she is supposed to be given a choice of a breath or a blood test. The San Diego officer is required by law to perform the San Diego DUI test one chooses.

Can I represent myself? What can a San Diego DUI attorney do for me?

You cannot really competently represent yourself in these extremely complicated cases(except in very unusual circumstances and only upon special application and sufficiently supported by a working knowledge of San Diego DUI law).

Why? Because: "A person who represents himself or herself has a fool for a lawyer."

San Diego DUI a specialized area of law with increasingly harsh San Diego California DUI consequences. There are many complex procedural, evidentiary, constitutional, sentencing and administrative license San Diego DUI issues.

An experienced San Diego DUI attorney can review the case for San Diego California DUI defects, suppress San Diego California DUI evidence, compel discovery of such San Diego DUI items as calibration / maintenance records for the San Diego DUI breath machine, negotiate for a lesser charge or reduced sentence, obtain expert witnesses for any San Diego DUI trial, contest the DMV administrative per se license suspension, and otherwise challenge one's San Diego DUI case in many possible ways.

San Diego DUI cases are different so it's important that San Diego residents contact a San Diego DUI attorney as soon as possible.

What is "mouth alcohol"?

"Mouth alcohol" refers to the existence of any alcohol in the mouth or esophagus area. If mouth alcohol is present during a California DUI breath test, then the San Diego California DUI results will be falsely high.

Mouth alcohol can be created or caused in many ways: Regurgitation of Gas, belching, burping, hiccuping, re-ingestion of alcohol, or vomiting within 15 minutes before taking the San Diego DUI test could bring contaminated vapor from alcoholic beverages still in the stomach up into the mouth and/or throat area. Dental bridges and dental caps may trap alcohol. Chewing tobacco or gum may trap tiny or micro particles of alcohol. see http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/Things-other-than-alcohol.html A chronic "reflux" condition from gastric disorder or a hiatal hernia may cause elevated San Diego DUI BAC readings.

What possible defenses are there in San Diego DUI & DMV cases?

Possible San Diego DUI / DMV defenses in a given San Diego drunk driving case are almost limitless due to the complexities of the offense and must be determined only by one's experienced California DUI / DMV defense attorney.

San Diego DUI / DMV defenses may include but are not limited to the following:

1. Driving Issues: Impairment is insufficient. The San Diego DUI attorney prosecutor must also prove that the person was actually driving. This may be difficult in may cases including but not limited to accidents when the San Diego drunk driving officer arrives after driving has completed, there are no witnesses as to who was the driver of the vehicle, e.g.

2. Lack of Probable Cause: San Diego DUI evidence will be suppressed if the San Diego DUI officer did not have legal and sufficient/competent factual cause to (a) stop or contact, (b) detain, and/or (c) arrest.

3. San Diego Drunk Driving Breath Test Defenses
4. San Diego Drunk Driving Blood Test Defenses
5. San Diego DMV Defenses
6. Other San Diego DUI Defenses

What are San Diego DUI police looking for when fishing for drunk drivers on San Diego's roads?

Always drive carefully. Stay off the cell phone. Leave the CD player alone.

The following is a list of purported signs or pseudo-"symptoms" (in descending order of purported probability) that the person observed is driving while intoxicated. The list is based upon research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Administration:

1. Turning with a wide radius
2. Straddling center of lane marker
3. "Appearing to be drunk"
4. Almost striking object or vehicle
5. Weaving
6. Driving on other than designated highway
7. Swerving
8. Speed more than 10 mph below limit
9. Stopping without cause in traffic lane
10. Following too closely
11. Drifting
12. Tires on center or lane marker
13. Braking erratically
14. Driving into opposing or crossing traffic
15. Signaling inconsistent with driving actions
16. Slow response to traffic signals
17. Stopping inappropriately (other than in lane)
18. Turning abruptly or illegally
19. Accelerating or decelerating rapidly
20. Headlights off

While speeding is not a symptom of a San Diego DUI, it leads to many traffic stops and may result in a San Diego DUI case. Many San Diego Drunk Driving officers, however, note that they will only stop you for speeding if you are ten or more miles per hour over the posted limit. Most San Diego DUI reports so note.

http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/faq-california-dui-attorney.html

If you have been arrested for drunk driving in San Diego, you have a chance to complete a report while it's fresh in your mind today at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey.

San Diego DUI Attorney FAQ's / Tips

2008-05-12T16:05:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI Attorney FAQ's / Tips

www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/articles

Do I have a right to speak to a San Diego California DUI attorney if I am contacted or stopped by a San Diego California DUI police officer?
No.

In San Diego California, you have no right to consult with a San Diego California DUI Lawyer upon being stopped, contacted, arrested or before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing (choice of required San Diego California DUI blood test or implied consent San Diego California DUI breath test at the station or jail).

You do have the right to remain silent (even if the San Diego California DUI officer does not tell you so).

You may polite refuse to speak to the San Diego California DUI officer.

You are only required to provide the San Diego California DUI officer with your license, registration and insurance (upon request).

You should be given the opportunity to contact a San Diego California DUI attorney after completion of the California DUI paperwork.

Do I politely refuse if asked to take San Diego California DUI field sobriety tests?
Yes.

In San Diego California, there are a number of voluntary San Diego California DUI field sobriety tests (FSTs) aka acrobatics or gymnastics, including heel-to-toe, finger-to-nose, one-leg stand, eye test aka horizontal gaze nystagmus test, alphabet, modified position of attention (Rhomberg), fingers-to-thumb, hand pat, etc. (These are different from San Diego California's required, implied consent test - blood or breath test.)

Most San Diego California DUI officers will try to use a set battery of these subjective and manipulative tests and begin without fairly telling the suspect these tests are optional or voluntary.

Unlike San Diego California's implied consent chemical test, where refusal to submit may have serious consequences, you are not legally required to take any of the San Diego California DUI Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) including the hand-held (Preliminary Alcohol Screening or PAS) blow test gadget in the field which is by statute voluntary.

San Diego California DUI officers usually make up their minds to arrest when they give the San Diego California DUI FSTs; the California DUI tests are simply additional San Diego California DUI evidence, which the suspect usually "fails".

A polite refusal to perform these San Diego California DUI acrobatics is usually wise. http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/articles

Why did the San Diego California DUI officer try to get me to follow a penlight with my eyes to the left and right?

This is the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" test, a huge development in San Diego California DUI cases.

The San Diego California DUI officer attempts to estimate the angle at which the eye begins to jerk ("nystagmus" is a medical term for a distinctive eye oscillation). If this occurs sooner than 45 degrees, it theoretically indicates a blood-alcohol concentration over .05%. In reality, it only tests for some presence of alcohol.

The smoothness of the eye's tracking the penlight (or finger or pencil) is a factor, as is the type of jerking when the eye is as far to the side as it can go. There are numerous non-alcohol explanations for same or similar symptoms.

This San Diego California DUI field sobriety test has proven to be subject to a number of different problems, not the least of which is the non-medically trained officer's ability to recognize nystagmus and estimate the angle of onset. Because of this, and the fact that the medical community does not accept the test, this San Diego DUI test is not admissible as evidence in many states.

San Diego California allows the pseudo/unscientific test as evidence to show presence of alcohol. It is widely used by San Diego California DUI police.

San County County DUI Law Center believes it is one of the least reliable San Diego California DUI tests and may be successful in discrediting this San Diego California DUI test.

What is a San Diego California DUI officer looking for during the initial detention or contact?

Purported signs of intoxication taught at pro-prosecution San Diego California DUI police academies include:

1. Flushed face
2. Red, watery, glassy and/or bloodshot eyes
3. Odor of alcohol on breath
4. Slurred speech
5. Fumbling with wallet trying to get license
6. Failure to comprehend the San Diego DUI officer's questions
7. Staggering when exiting vehicle
8. Swaying/instability on feet
9. Leaning on car for support
10. Combative, argumentative, jovial or other "inappropriate" attitude
11. Soiled, rumpled, disorderly clothing
12. Stumbling while walking
13. Disorientation as to time and place
14. Inability to follow directions

There are many non-alcohol reasons which can fairly explain the above purported signs.

If I refuse to take a San Diego California DUI blood or breath test, is the consequence a 12 to 24 month driver's license suspension?

Yes. There are potential, major San Diego California DUI effects:

1. Your driver's license could be suspended for a period of twelve to twenty-four months. (This may be true even if you are found not guilty of the San Diego California DUI charge.)

2. The fact of refusal to submit to a San Diego California DUI blood or breath test can be introduced as "consciousness of guilt" in your San Diego California DUI court case."

3. San Diego Drunk Driving Police can still do a forced blood draw and use that against you in court.

4. Your San Diego Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Attorney will be fighting both the refusal/consciousness of guilt issue + the blood test result in San Diego DUI Court.

www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com/duiblog/

San Diego DUI checkpoint in Vista this weekend

2008-05-12T08:40:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI attorney news

May 12, 2008

www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net

San Diego DUI deputies arrested six motorists for San Diego DUI and cited two others at a San Diego DUI checkpoint Saturday night in Vista.

Six motorists were held on suspicion of San Diego DUI - drunk driving, and two motorists under 21 were cited on suspicion of drinking alcohol before driving. The San Diego DUI arrests were made on East Vista Way near Oak Drive, where nearly 1,400 vehicles were screened between 8:15 p.m. Saturday and 2 a.m. Sunday, San Diego DUI lawyers are told.

San Diego DUI attorney info www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/about

2008-05-11T13:34:00.000-07:00

May 10, 2008

CONVENIENT SAN DIEGO DUI ATTORNEY "EVALUATION FORM" at http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html

http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com

http://www.sandiegodui.com/

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

http://www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net

San Diego DUI - Driving under the influence (DUI) is illegal in California, even if the laws and punishments for driving under the influence vary a little from county to county.

No matter where you live, the consequences for San Diego DUI are inconvenient at best and serious at worst. You could have your license suspended, be slapped with some heavy fines or even spend some time in San Diego DUI jail. These San Diego DUI consequences can make something as vital as getting to work a challenging task.

If you want to avoid some of all of these San Diego DUI consequences, it would probably be wise to hire a San Diego DUI attorney and to hire one quickly after your San Diego DUI arrest. You will automatically lose your license after 10 days for a San Diego DUI unless your San Diego DUI lawyer contacts San Diego DMV. So, time is of the essence.

Quality San Diego DUI lawyers will be able to create considerable doubt in a jury, in spite of unfavorable driving patterns, San Diego DUI chemical results and San Diego DUI sobriety tests. If your license or your freedom is on the line, their experience is a good ally to have on hand.

Even though you don’t have a lot of time to find a Premier San Diego DUI lawyer, you still want to know the credentials of San Diego DUI attorneys who may be defending your San Diego DUI case.

Ask:
Have the San Diego DUI lawyers been successful in the past?
Do the San Diego DUI attorneys have a good reputation in their area?
Where were the San Diego DUI attorneys educated?
How much do the San Diego DUI attorneys charge?

You can get background information on several different San Diego DUI lawyers if you find a website that provides mini bio for the San Diego DUI attorney.

http://www.google.com

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html

http://www.yahoo.com

http://www.sandiegodui.com

http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

http://www.1800thelawdui.com

http://wwww.sandiegodui.com/criminal

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com

http://www.sandiegodui.com

San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .

San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .

http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

http://www.1800thelawdui.com

http://wwww.sandiegodui.com/criminal

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com

http://www.sandiegodui.com

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller Background and Contact Information http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/about.html

San Diego DUI and DMV Penalties http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/penalty.html

Out of State License/Resident & Driving Record http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/out_of_state.html

Military Base DUI - San Diego County Federal Court - http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/base.html

http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - Excellent San Diego DUI information source for San Diego county drunk driving arrest. Rights, Laws, Defenses, Penalties, DMV, Court, Military, DUI Boating, Helpful Tips and other comprehensive information. Vigorous DUI lawyer who can save your license and keep you out of jail.

www.Google.com

San Diego DUI Attorneys:

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

www.Yahoo.com

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller

2008-05-10T13:50:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney announcement

May 10, 2008

San Diego DUI Lawyer Specialist Rick Mueller is a Premier San Diego Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 24 years of experience.

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his law practice to aggressively defending those accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. He has successfully saved the driving privileges of many clients in the past year alone. http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/

Fill-out the important, online San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to keep you out of jail. The San Diego county Drunk Driving officer prepared a DUI report so why not do it when it is fresh in your mind? http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer list:

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

1-800-The-Law-DUI

http://www.google.com

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html

http://www.yahoo.com

4 Years Prison for San Diego DUI / Gross Vehicular Manslaughter Plea Today

2008-05-09T13:32:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI attorney news

May 8, 2008

www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com/duiblog

A hospital worker who drove drunk through a residential South Bay neighborhood after a night of partying in Tijuana and crashed into a parked truck, killing his passenger, pleaded guilty Friday to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, San Diego DUI lawyers report.

Samuel Daniel Baltazar, 26, will be sentenced to four years in state prison at a San Diego DUI hearing July 10 before San Diego Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sontag.

Baltazar, who worked in the intensive care unit at Scripps Green Hospital, was driving 60 mph in a posted 30 mph zone in Otay Mesa after a night of bar-hopping when his pickup truck slammed into the back of a legally parked U-Haul truck at 6:10 a.m. on Jan. 26, San Diego DUI attorney prosecutor Stephen Marquardt said.

The force of the collision moved the rental truck 12 feet and severed 21- year-old Daniel Barreto's leg, causing him to bleed to death, San Diego DUI lawyers are told.

According to San Diego DUI attorney sources, Baltazar hadn't slept in 24 hours, had a usable amount of cocaine in his pocket and a blood-alcohol level measured at .095 percent an hour after the accident, above the legal limit of .08 percent.

A canister of marijuana was also found in the seat of the car where Baltazar had been sitting, according San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys, who are told the defendant was driving on an expired license and had recent contact with law enforcement for speeding.

Baltazar also admitted that he knew his truck had faulty brakes, San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers understand. www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

San Diego DUI Attorney Review

2008-05-09T13:01:00.002-07:00

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer Review

May 9, 2008

www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/about

Today I am going to review a law firm that offers an Exclusive, Premier DUI & DMV Defense Attorney in San Diego, California.

San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving Defense Lawyers in Southern California often look to San Diego County DUI Law Center's San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller for San Diego Drunk Driving assistance.

Rick has successfully handled many San Diego DUI & DMV cases. This San Diego DUI attorney has been practicing criminal law for over 24 years. This San Diego DUI attorney is personally available for a San Diego DUI consultation, online at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey .

Rick has a reputation of being formidable force in San Diego DUI criminal & DMV law. Rick has good standing among other San Diego DUI lawyers, San Diego DUI Judges, San Diego DUI attorney prosecutors, and San Diego DUI police forces.

Obviously, if you get your driving hands dirty, you know whom to turn to for real San Diego DUI help ;) - www.sandiegodui.com .

Baker v. Gourley California DUI - DMV case

2008-05-07T22:06:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI attorney news

May 7, 2008

Baker v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th

Background

John Baker was arrested for drunk driving and had his driver's license
suspended. He challenged the suspension in an administrative hearing
conducted by the DMV. At the hearing Baker presented uncontroverted
evidence that the Orange County crime lab which analyzed his blood
sample had not complied with state regulations requiring such labs to
have new alcohol testing procedures on file with the state Department
of Health Services. fn. 1 The new procedures used by the lab involved
a larger glass vial and more sodium fluoride as a preservative. At the
administrative hearing, there was uncontroverted expert testimony to
the effect that the combination could result in a false high. The DMV
did nothing to show that the test was otherwise reliable. Even so, the
DMV refused to reinstate Baker's license.

Baker then sought relief in the trial court. He brought a petition for
a writ of mandate, seeking an order requiring the reinstatement of the
license. The petition was denied by the trial judge, based on
circumstantial evidence other than the suspect blood test.
Specifically, at the time of his arrest Baker had exhibited an
unsteady gait, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, a smell of alcohol, and
there was a port wine stain on his clothing.

This non-chemical test evidence is important because, given the crime
lab's failure to comply with the state regulations, the burden then
shifted to the DMV to show that the test was still reliable. (See
Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133 ,
144 ["If the licensee shows . . . that official standards were in any
respect not observed, the burden shifts to the [DMV] to prove that the
test was reliable despite the violation."].) Having failed to carry
that burden, the upshot is that the DMV had no substantial evidence
with which to conclude that Baker's blood alcohol level was .08
percent or greater at a time while he was driving.

That is, unless the unsteady gait, the bloodshot eyes, the slurred
speech, the odor of alcohol and the wine stain could, by themselves ,
suffice to establish that Baker had .08 or greater blood-alcohol while
he was driving.

The case thus quickly devolves to this question: Can a given amount of
blood-alcohol level be established without a valid chemical test by
evidence of behavior or indicia typically associated with
intoxication, such as, like here, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, or
an unsteady gait? The DMV claims that McKinney v. Department of Motor
Vehicles (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 519 and Jackson v. Department of Motor
Vehicles (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 730 provide an affirmative answer to
the question.

No. They don't. There is language in both cases which can be read for
the proposition that circumstantial evidence apart from a chemical
test might establish a given blood-alcohol level, but that language is
not only dicta, but unsupported dicta. In the Jackson case, in fact,
one of the authorities cited by the court would require the opposite
conclusion.

McKinney

The McKinney case arose out of the "sloppy draftsmanship" of a DMV
form used by arresting officers. (See McKinney, supra , 5 Cal.App.4th
at p. 523.) The form merely asked the officer to say that at such and
such a date and time, he or she "had reasonable cause to believe" that
a certain driver "was arrested" for driving under the influence. (
Ibid .) The court noted that by focusing on the time of the arrest ,
the form omitted any material as to the time the motorist was driving
under the influence. As the McKinney court pointed out, the form was
illogical: An arresting officer certainly knows when he or she made
the arrest. (See ibid .) What the form should have asked the officer
to state is that at such and such a time, the officer had "reasonable
cause to believe the driver 'was' driving under the influence of
alcohol." ( Id . at p. 524.)

Seizing on the deficiency of the form, the arrested motorist in
McKinney argued that there was no evidence that his blood alcohol
level was .08 at the time he was driving , even though a subsequent
chemical test, an intoxilyzer, conducted less than an hour and
one-half later, showed two blood alcohol readings of .128 and .129. (
McKinney, supra , 5 Cal.App.4th at pp. 521-522.)

Most of the opinion was taken up establishing the point that the DMV
hearing officer could validly infer from the motorist's condition at
the time of his arrest that he had more than .08 alcohol in his blood
at the time he was driving . (See McKinney, supra , 5 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 523-524.) The second part of the opinion tackled the issue of
whether the DMV had the burden of establishing the admissibility of
the chemical test under the "Kelly-Frye" standard. (See id . at p.
525.)

The passage which supports the DMV's position here is found in the
third part of the opinion in the last substantive paragraph. (See
McKinney, supra , 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 526.) There, the court noted
that one of the elements necessary for the suspension of the license
is that the motorist's blood alcohol level be at least .08. The court
then declared, without further analysis, that the element was
"abundantly established, both by the breathalyzer test readings and
the arresting officer's personal observations." ( Ibid .)

The declaration would be have nothing more than an ipse dixit had the
court not appended to it a three-paragraph footnote. The footnote
began with this one-sentence paragraph: "While a chemical test result
is usually relied upon by the hearing officer as decisive, we point
out that it is not the only means of establishing that a driver's BAL
was .08 or more." ( McKinney, supra , 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 526, fn. 6.)

Next followed this sentence, impliedly offered as support for the
preceding sentence: "As our Supreme Court has noted, what the
Legislature has prohibited is driving a vehicle with a blood-alcohol
rate over the prescribed limit, not driving when a chemical test shows
it to be over the limit." ( Ibid ., original emphasis.) That
statement, of course, is otherwise unremarkable.

The next sentence, however, then leapt to this conclusion: "Thus, both
parties are free to introduce circumstantial evidence bearing on
whether the driver's BAL exceeded the permissible level." ( McKinney,
supra , 5 Cal.App.4th at p. 526, fn. 6.) For this statement the
McKinney court cited Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 257 ,
266, footnote 10.

Burg was a Supreme Court tour de force opinion written in response to
a challenge to California's having adopted the "'Scandinavian model'"
of drunk driving law. (See Burg, supra , 35 Cal.3d at p. 263.)
California had recently defined its penal drunk driving law in terms
of having a certain blood alcohol level and the defendant in Burg
argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague. His theory was that
a motorist usually cannot know precisely how much alcohol is in his or
her blood. (See id . at p. 261.)

The Burg court, of course, rejected the defendant's void-for-vagueness
idea. Footnote 10 in Burg , relied on by the McKinney court, was
itself the tag end of a passage the gravamen of which was a refutation
of the defendant's contention that the state had unconstitutionally
created a presumption of guilt. (See Burg, supra , 35 Cal.3d at pp.
264-266.) The Burg court refuted the contention by saying, in the
text, that the prosecution still had to prove, at the time a motorist
was driving, his or her blood alcohol exceeded the defined amount. (
Id . at p. 265.) Footnote 10 was appended after that comment. ( Burg,
supr a, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 265-266, & p. 266, fn. 10.)

Burg footnote 10 opened with the point, noted above, that what the law
actually prohibits is driving with blood alcohol at or above a certain
point, not driving "when a subsequent test shows a level of 0.10 or
more."

Then came the sentence that the McKinney court presumably relied on
for the proposition that "both parties are free to introduce
circumstantial evidence bearing on whether the driver's BAL exceeded
the permissible level." It read: "Circumstantial evidence will
generally be necessary to establish the requisite blood-alcohol level
called for by the statute." ( Burg, supra , 35 Cal.3d at p. 266, fn.
10.)

However, the "circumstantial evidence" that the court was referring to
clearly contemplated chemical tests as well as other evidence. The
Burg court's next sentence was: "A test for the proportion of alcohol
in the blood will, obviously, be the usual type of circumstantial
evidence, but of course the test is not conclusive: the defendant
remains free to challenge the accuracy of the test result , the manner
in which it was administered, and by whom. [Citations.]" ( Ibid .,
emphasis added.) The paragraph ended with a sentence that emphasized
the relationship between chemical test evidence and non-chemical test
evidence: "Of course, both parties may also adduce other
circumstantial evidence tending to establish that the defendant did or
did not have a 0.10 percent blood-alcohol level while driving." (
Ibid. , emphasis added.)

That sentence, in turn, was supported by a citation to Fuenning v.
Superior Court (Ariz. 1983) 680 P.2d 121, 130. The passage from
Fuenning to which the Burg court referred was, however, not a
discussion of whether non-chemical test circumstantial evidence could
establish a given blood-alcohol level. Rather, the defendant in
Fuenning had argued that such circumstantial evidence was totally
irrelevant to a determination of blood-alcohol level. The Fuenning
court was determined to debunk that idea.

In that context, the Fuenning court had this to say (which it said in
the main text, not a footnote): "In each case in which a violation of
[the subsection of the statute precluding driving with .10 blood
alcohol] is charged, the state will present evidence of the test and
the issue will be whether the test results were an accurate
measurement of the defendant's BAC at the time of arrest. Typically,
defendants will attack the margin of error, the conversion rate, the
calibration of the test instrument, the technique used by the
operator, the absorption and detoxification factors, etc. Evidence of
the defendant's conduct and behavior -- good or bad -- will be
relevant to the jury's determination of whether the test results are
an accurate measurement of alcohol concentration at the time of the
conduct charged." ( Fuenning, supra , 680 P.2d at p. 130, emphasis
added.)

In short, Fuenning's discussion was predicated on the existence of a
chemical test. The court simply rebutted the notion that the trier of
fact should be limited to the test.

Three conclusions necessarily emerge from our exploration of the
McKinney , its explanatory footnote, the authorities mentioned in that
footnote, and the authorities cited by those authorities. The first is
that the McKinney court never actually held that circumstantial
evidence absent a chemical test of some sort was sufficient to
establish a given blood alcohol level. The court was, strictly
speaking, only concerned with the question of whether non-chemical
test circumstantial evidence might be used to establish the perfectly
commonsense notion that if a driver had X amount of alcohol in his
blood at the time of his arrest, the driver also had X amount of
alcohol when he was driving. fn. 2

The next conclusion is that anything that the McKinney court said or
implied about the establishment of blood alcohol level in the absence
of a chemical test was unnecessary to the result, i.e., dicta. The
McKinney court needed only to have addressed whether such evidence
could corroborate a chemical test (which is an easy question -- the
answer to that is obviously yes).

The third conclusion is that any dicta in McKinney concerning the
establishment of blood alcohol level in the absence of a chemical test
(e.g., that a chemical test "is not the only means of establishing
that a driver's BAL was .08 or more") was unsupported by the
authorities it cited. It is reasonably clear from both Burg and
Fuenning that their concern was also the obvious need to use
non-chemical test circumstantial evidence to corroborate or bolster
the accuracy of a chemical test. Neither case purported to hold or say
anything to the effect that a given blood alcohol level could be
established merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence without a
valid blood test.

The language in McKinney which might be read for the idea that
non-chemical test evidence alone will suffice is an example of the
tendency of ideas to become distorted when they are paraphrased from
one court to another. As we said in In re Marriage of Schaffer (1999)
69 Cal.App.4th 801 , 811, footnote 7: "Judges must always be aware of
the tendency of the common law to be like the child's birthday game
where a few words are whispered into the ear of one person who then
repeats them to the next and so on until the words have made their way
round the table and it is finally discovered that they have been
mangled beyond all recognition." McKinney didn't exactly mangle Burg
and Fuenning , but loose language in the opinion would impliedly
extract from those cases a proposition that wasn't in them.

Jackson

Seventeen volumes of the California Appellate Reporter, Fourth Series
after McKinney , another division of the Court of Appeal handed down
Jackson v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra , 22 Cal.App.4th 730 ,
which also contained a statement which might be read for the idea that
circumstantial evidence sans chemical test could suffice to establish
a proscribed blood alcohol level.

The Jackson case followed much the same pattern as McKinney . That is,
the motorist asserted there was insufficient evidence his blood level
was .08 or greater at the time he was driving . (See Jackson, supra ,
22 Cal.App.4th at pp. 740-741.) The contention was based on a one and
three-quarter-hour time lapse between the report of the accident
leading to the arrest (ironically, the motorist wasn't at fault -- he
had been rear-ended at a stoplight) and the actual administration of a
breath test yielding a .08 reading.

Given the additional, non-chemical test evidence of intoxication --
bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, unsteady gait
-- the contention, said the court, was nonsense. (See Jackson, supra ,
22 Cal.App.4th at p. 741.)

Again, the court relied on the reasonable inferences to be drawn. The
test was performed less than two hours after the accident had been
reported, there was nothing to indicate that more than one hour had
elapsed from the actual time of the accident to the report of it, and
therefore the statutory presumption that a chemical test administered
within three hours "after the driving" shows the blood alcohol at the
time of driving (see Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) had gone
unrebutted, and it had therefore been established that the blood
alcohol at the time of driving was .08 or greater. ( Jackson, supra ,
22 Cal.App.4th at p. 741.)

Then, as in McKinney , came some dicta to bolster the conclusion. "We
also note," said the Jackson court, "circumstantial evidence other
than chemical test results may properly be admitted to establish a
driver had the proscribed level of blood-alcohol at the time of the
offense." ( Jackson, supra , 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 741.) For that
proposition, the Jackson court cited footnotes in three authorities:
footnote 10 in Burg , which we have already discussed, footnote 6 in
McKinney , which we have also already discussed, and footnote 7 in
Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 809 , 817.

Imachi , ironically enough, not only didn't support the proposition
for which it was cited, it went in the opposite direction. In Imachi ,
the breath test itself showed only a .07 reading. (See Imachi, supra ,
2 Cal.App.4th at p. 813.) There was no evidence that the motorist had
.08 alcohol or more in his blood, except for an officer's supplemental
declaration "which reported test results showing a blood-alcohol
concentration of .08 percent." ( Id . at p. 812.)

That wasn't enough, said the Imachi court. (See Imachi, supra , 2
Cal.App.4th at p. 817 ["The problem in the present case is that the
blood test results were put in evidence only through the hearsay
statement of the officer."].) In the text the court ruled: The
"hearsay within the statement could not be the sole basis for the
suspension of the appellant's driver's license." ( Id. , emphasis
added.)

It was its rejection of the officer's hearsay as the "sole basis" for
suspension to which the Imachi court appended footnote 7, which the
Jackson court in turn cited for the proposition that "circumstantial
evidence other than chemical test results may properly be admitted to
establish a driver had the proscribed level of blood-alcohol at the
time of the offense." ( Jackson, supra , 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 741.)

But Imachi footnote 7 said no such thing. It began with this sentence:
" Respondent [the DMV] notes that circumstantial evidence other than
chemical test results is admissible to establish that a driver had the
proscribed level of blood alcohol at the time of the offense," and
then cited the same footnote 10 in Burg cited by McKinney . ( Imachi,
supra , 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 817.)

Obviously that sentence doesn't help the DMV's position here. Every
first-week law student should be taught that restatements of
assertions by litigants within an opinion do not represent the
deliberative process of the court.

Imachi footnote 7 next described the officer's statement to the effect
the motorist had exhibited the usual symptoms (unsteady gait, watery
eyes etcetera). The court then juxtaposed the officer's statement with
the next sentence, to the effect that the DMV was not contending the
disputed blood test was admissible on the theory that it was "only
used 'for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence.'"
The appellate court next stated: "Where, as here, an objective test
scientifically establishing the proscribed blood-alcohol level is
improperly considered, an appellate court cannot assume the trial
court did not rely solely upon it." Given the statute precluding "sole
reliance on hearsay evidence" (i.e., Gov. Code, § 11513) and "the fact
that the test result was clearly the critical piece of evidence
establishing that appellant's blood-alcohol concentration exceeded the
legal limit, no such contention would be persuasive." ( Imachi, supra
, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 817.)

While Imachi's footnote 7 is perhaps not the easiest legal writing to
follow, basically it made the point that if the DMV had argued that
reliance on the officer's statement was permissible to show .08
blood-alcohol, it would have lost.

The same conclusions emerge from our analysis of Jackson that emerged
from our analysis of McKinney . First, Jackson's statement that
"circumstantial evidence other than chemical test results may properly
be admitted to establish a driver had the proscribed level of
blood-alcohol at the time of the offense," was not as tightly written
as the court might have wanted: The Jackson court was focused, like
the McKinney court, on the question of whether a blood alcohol test
administered sometime after arrest could properly show a given blood
alcohol level while driving. ( Of course non-chemical test evidence is
available on that point, because it is a reasonable inference that a
driver who is acting drunk at the time of arrest has a higher blood
alcohol at that time than at the time of the actual administration of
the chemical test.)

Second, to the degree that the statement is construed to mean that
non-chemical test evidence can alone support a blood-alcohol
concentration, it was dicta. Jackson was never required to confront
that question.

Third, to the degree that the statement is construed to mean that
non-chemical test evidence can alone support a blood-alcohol
concentration, it was unsupported dicta. The citation to the McKinney
footnote was only as strong as the McKinney footnote itself, the Burg
footnote did not say that at all, and the Imachi footnote actually
went in the opposite direction.

Thinking Through the Problem

Neither McKinney nor Jackson directly confronted the problem of
whether circumstantial evidence without a valid chemical test could
support a finding that a motorist was driving with a given alcohol
level. Imachi came the closest to directly addressing the issue,
because the case involved no valid chemical test, only an officer's
hearsay statement of what he thought the test result was. Most telling
there, the motorist won.

Here, Baker's license was suspended under the so-called Admin Per Se
law (Veh. Code, § 13353.2), and the whole point of that law is the
"per se" part. It is focused entirely on blood-alcohol level. Section
13353.2, subdivision (a) provides: "The department shall immediately
suspend the privilege of any person to operate a motor vehicle for any
one of the following reasons" and then follows only two reasons: "(1)
The person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had 0.08
percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood," and "(2)
The person was under 21 years of age and had a blood-alcohol
concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary
alcohol screening test, or other chemical test." Missing among the
listed reasons is substantive intoxication, independent of
blood-alcohol level, as is provided for in the criminal drunk driving
laws. (Cf. Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a) ["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 and drug, to
drive a vehicle."].)

Because the admin per se law is wholly pegged to a given blood-alcohol
level, it follows that circumstantial evidence without a valid
chemical test is insufficient to suspend a license. After all, the
usual symptoms of substantive intoxication -- slurred speech, blood
shot eyes, etcetera -- can manifest themselves at a blood-alcohol
level below .08. (See Burg, supra , 35 Cal.3d at pp. 267-268 [noting
that vision and reaction time impairments can occur below a .08
blood-alcohol level].) We are aware of no body of scientific evidence
to the effect that such symptoms as slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, or
even port wine stains, automatically correlate with .08 or greater
blood-alcohol. In fact, as contact lens wearers know, bloodshot eyes
may have nothing to do with drinking. Thus to allow such symptoms to
establish a blood alcohol level without a valid chemical test is to
add to the admin per se statute what isn't there. (See Code Civ.
Proc., § 1859 [judges are not to add or subtract to statutes].)

The trial court therefore erred in concluding the DMV had sufficient
evidence to suspend Baker's license based only on the evidence of
substantive intoxication in the face of the department's failure to
carry its burden of demonstrating that the blood test was reliable.

The judgment of the trial court in denying the requested writ of
mandate is therefore reversed, with directions to enter a new order
granting the requested writ. Baker shall also recover his costs on
appeal.

Given that there was evidence of substantive intoxication, however, it
would be unseemly, as we have concluded in similar cases, to sanction
the DMV for presenting a frivolous defense. Any reasonable attorney
could easily have gotten lost in the labyrinth of footnotes concealed
within the McKinney and Jackson dicta.

O'Leary, J., and Aronson, J., concurred.

FN 1. Section 1220 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations
states in pertinent part, "(a) All laboratory methods used for
forensic alcohol analysis shall be subject to standards set forth in
this Article. [¶] (b) Each licensed forensic alcohol laboratory shall
have on file with the Department [of Health Services] detailed,
up-to-date written descriptions of each method it uses for forensic
alcohol analysis." It is not clear whether this regulation impliedly
requires approval of any new testing procedures, but that issue is
outside the purview of this opinion.

FN 2. A corollary to this commonsense point is that non-chemical
test circumstantial evidence can shed light on whether the margin of
error in a chemical test makes any difference. (See People v. Randolph
(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 5-8 (such evidence was available to
refute idea that a test reading of .10, when that was the limit, did
not show actual .10 blood-alcohol given a margin of error of 0.010
percent).)

www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/blog

Challenging a San Diego DUI Breath Test Machine

2008-05-07T08:02:00.000-07:00

May 7, 2008

San Diego DUI attorneys are challenging San Diego DUI Intoxilyzer test results. Erroneous San Diego DUI test results may be attacked at the San Diego Drunk Driving trial.

Questioning the San Diego DUI test results should weaken the San Diego DUI attorney prosecutor’s case.

A person should not be convicted of a San Diego DUI if the underlying San Diego DUI test is suspect or creates doubt.

Not surprisingly, a San Diego DUI breath test machine does not work as advertised. Among the San Diego DUI machine failures, include but are not limited to:

1. The San Diego DUI breath test machine does not reliably and accurately detect mouth alcohol.

This results in a reported breath alcohol concentration much higher that the person’s actual alcohol concentration. Those with gastric reflux issues (G.E.R.D.) or who burp or belch before giving a sample are not treated fairly and may be unfairly accused of having an alcohol concentration well over their actual alcohol concentration. The State has claimed that the machine’s "slope detector" will flag such a problem, but the detector does not work as claimed. In fact, top forensic scientists agree that these devices are entirely unreliable and cannot be relied upon to prove guilt in a San Diego DUI case.

2. The San Diego DUI Intoxilyzer does not accurately and reliably subtract all interferents such as Isopropanol and Acetone. These compounds have a similar molecular structure as alcohol. Although a machine may identify the presence of such substances, it does not fully subtract the amount of the added "alcohol" on the driver’s breath. Those with diabetes or who have endured prolonged exposure to such substances as paint fumes, solvents and numerous chemicals can be adversely affected.

3. The San Diego DUI machine can be greatly affected by the manner in which the subject blows into the Intoxilyzer. By hyperventilating, blowing at a minimal rate and giving a minimal volume of air, a person can lower the reported alcohol concentration by at least 50%. Often San Diego DUI officers attempt to obtain the highest reading by having the person hypoventilate and completely empty their lungs before blowing but this will raise the reported alcohol concentration by as much as one-third.
Worry-free San Diego California DUI help for San Diego California DUI court and San Diego California DMV. Complete San Diego California DUI Help to save your California license or other state license.

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 24 years of experience. San Diego California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.

Simply complete the Free San Diego California DUI Evaluation at http://www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey.html to vigorously protect your important driving privilege.

San Diego DUI Attorneys:

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

1-800-The-Law-DUI

http://www.google.com

San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney & San Diego DMV Lawyer Help

2008-05-06T09:54:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI Attorney Consultation (online)

San Diego Drunk Driving / DMV Attorney Rick Mueller specializes in California DUI and DMV law.

San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist Rick Mueller is the only DMV - DUI attorney who was the featured Speaker at seven DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last several years.

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is known as a "DMV Guru".

Rick is specially recognized as a San Diego DUI Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as California's bible for DUI defense, the book features some of San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller's hard work.

San Diego DUI / drunk driving lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association (formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller speaks at Strategies in Handling DUI Cases seminars, at the DUI & Drug Defense seminar at the San Diego Bar Building, at the North San Diego County Bar Association's Drunk Driving - DMV seminars, and at the Public Defender's Office DMV - DUI Training seminars. His DMV - DUI
work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller actively defends these cases, and files DMV writs and appeals. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is in Good Standing with the State Bar (#114305).

San Diego DUI Lawyer consultation (online):

* COMPLETE FREE SAN DIEGO DUI "EVALUATION FORM" href="http://www.sandiegodui.com">http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html

Click on below for a San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney:

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

1-800-The-Law-DUI

http://www.google.com

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html

http://www.yahoo.com

San Diego DUI checkpoint in Encinitas this weekend

2008-05-05T18:30:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI lawyer news

Cinco de May, 2008
May 5, 2008

www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog

ENCINITAS, California

5 people were arrested on suspicion of San Diego DUI / drunken driving at a checkpoint in Encinitas that ended early Sunday, according to the San Diego County Sheriff's Department and San Diego DUI attorneys.

Of the 573 vehicles that passed through the San Diego DUI checkpoint between 8 p.m. Saturday and 2 a.m. Sunday, 354 drivers were spoken to by deputies, and 11 given San Diego DUI field sobriety tests.

San Diego DUI deputies impounded 12 cars. Six citations were issued for driving without a license, one for driving on a suspended license and two for driving while in possession of marijuana.

The San Diego DUI checkpoint was in the 800 block of Santa Fe Drive, just east of San Dieguito High School, San Diego DUI lawyers discovered.

www.sandiegodui.com

Arrested for San Diego DUI & Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer?

2008-05-05T08:55:00.001-07:00

Arrested for a DUI or drunk driving offense that occurred in the San Diego area?

Need the best San Diego DUI attorney available to defend your San Diego drunk driving case?

An experienced San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney will provide the most thorough investigation and professional handling of your case from start to finish. With a goal to protect your legal rights and reduce penalties to the minimum, you San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer will keep you advised every step of the way.

In order to properly defend your San Diego DUI case and give you the best chance to get back to your life, it is important to seek San Diego DUI legal representation immediately.

Retaining top San Diego drunk driving legal representation will ensure any necessary bail posting as soon as possible to reduce initial San Diego jail time.

The best San Diego DUI defense attorney will investigate all San Diego drunk driving arrests to ensure that the client’s legal rights were preserved and the San Diego county police officer following proper San Diego procedure.

If your San Diego DUI criminal lawyer identifies an illegal action or misconduct by the San Diego police officer, it could be grounds for San Diego DUI case dismissal.

However, if all proper San Diego procedures were followed - an unlikely event - your San Diego DUI attorney will nonetheless defend your San Diego drunk driving case to the most professional extent.

A first San Diego DUI / drunk driving offense is the best opportunity for your San Diego DUI defense lawyer to vigorously defend and to request a reduced San Diego DUI sentencing.

A premier San Diego DUI attorney will be one with over 24 years of experience and expertise in San Diego California drunk driving cases. Excellent San Diego court outcomes and satisfied clients will also be illustrative of the talent of your San Diego DUI / drunk driving criminal attorney.

San Diego DUI law firms provide free initial consultation to learn more about your case. To find the best San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney, visit www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net .

What you must do within 10 days of being arrested in San Diego

10. If you need to save your driver's license or privileges, your attorney has only ten (10) calendar days to contact DMV!

Do not schedule yourself. If you contact DMV to schedule a date conflicting with your attorney's calendar, DMV will not reschedule and you may not get the attorney of your choice. There is no rush as long as your attorney contacts DMV by the 10th day from your arrest.

9. The ten (10) day time limit is computed from the Issue date of the SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. If time is running out or you are late, contact an attorney ASAP.

8. This ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is the California DMV paper which you should have received.

7. Even if you did not receive this DMV paper, the California DMV will probably take action against your driving privileges.

6. Even if you have a license from another state, and even if the officer did not take your license, that state may also take action against your driving privileges.

5. This TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE ENDORSEMENT is valid for only thirty (30) days from the issue date.

If a DMV hearing is requested within ten (10) days, your DMV TEMPORARY will be extended & there will be a stay (delay) of any suspension until the outcome of your DMV hearing is determined.

4. Do not confuse this initial 30 day TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE with your court date!

The DMV and criminal proceedings are separate and independent. The outcome of one almost never affects the other. Sometimes the officer or the DMV paper confuses or misleads you to believe that the TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is good "until the court date". If there are approximately thirty (30) days from your arrest date to your court date, this may just be a dangerous coincidence. There usually are months before your DMV hearing takes place.

3. There are three (3) issues at the hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of DMV paper.)

Issues are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you or whether the chemical test evidence is beatable.

2. The DMV has the burden of proof to prevail on all three (3) issues. If DMV meets the burden of proof on two (2) issues, you win!

1. All a DMV attorney has to do is knock out one (1) DMV issue to save your license & you avoid any reissue fee and/or Proof of Insurance SR-22 filing!

San Diego DUI Attorneys:

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI Attorney

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney & San Diego DUI Lawyer Help

2008-05-03T08:56:00.000-07:00

San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney Rick Mueller and his San Diego County DUI Law Center welcome you to see complete San Diego drunk driving attorney & San Diego DUI lawyer information for those accused of DUI in San Diego.

San Diego DUI attorney information could help you deal with the San Diego DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) and save your driver's license:

Why use the San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist in DUI and DMV Law
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html

List of San Diego DUI Attorney Victories and Driver's Licenses Saved in Past Few Years http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/victory.html

What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a San Diego DUI http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/10days.html

San Diego County DMV and Courts
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/courts.html

San Diego DUI Breath Test Defenses http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/defenses.html

San Diego DUI Blood Test Defenses
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/blood.html

You could take the Free San Diego DUI Survey at http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 24 years of experience. Known as San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney Rick Mueller and his San Diego County DUI Law Center welcome you to see complete San Diego drunk driving attorney & San Diego DUI lawyer information for those accused of DUI in San Diego.

San Diego DUI attorney information could help you deal with the San Diego DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) and save your driver's license:

Why use the San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist in DUI and DMV Law
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html

List of San Diego DUI Attorney Victories and Driver's Licenses Saved in Past Few Years http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/victory.html

What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a San Diego DUI http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/10days.html

San Diego County DMV and Courts
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/courts.html

San Diego DUI Breath Test Defenses http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/defenses.html

San Diego DUI Blood Test Defenses
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/blood.html

You could take the Free San Diego DUI Survey at http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 24 years of experience. Known as a "DMV Guru," Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his law practice to aggressively defending those accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. He has successfully saved the driving privileges of many clients in the past year alone. Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller Background and Contact Information http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/about.html

San Diego DUI and DMV Penalties http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/penalty.html

Out of State License/Resident & Driving Record http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/out_of_state.html

Military Base DUI - San Diego County Federal Court - http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/base.html

http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - Excellent San Diego DUI information source for San Diego county drunk driving arrest. Rights, Laws, Defenses, Penalties, DMV, Court, Military, DUI Boating, Helpful Tips and other comprehensive information. Vigorous DUI lawyer who can save your license and keep you out of jail.

Call 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI (1-800-843-5293) for a free San Diego DUI consultation http://www.1800thelawdui.com.

For help with your San Diego DUI, visit http://www.SanDiegoDUIHelp.com.

Rick Mueller, DUI Specialist (cell: 619/218-2997)
4660 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 500, San Diego, CA, 92122

For San Diego DUI news, visit http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/ or www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/blog .

How can you find a qualified San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer ?

2008-05-02T17:08:00.000-07:00

How can you find a qualified San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer ?

Various types of lawyers handle San Diego drunk driving cases, including public defenders, general practitioners, criminal defense lawyers, and Drunk Driving Specialist attorneys.

A San Diego County public defender is a California attorney provided at little or no cost to provide defense services to people who financially are unable to hire a private San Diego lawyer. Most San Diego County Districts generally do not offer public defenders services unless you are unemployed, significantly under-employed and/or have no assets.

Some excellent questions to begin asking when searching for a California Drunk Driving lawyer are:

What are his or her California Drunk Driving attorney's qualifications?

Is he or she a Specialist member of the California DUI Lawyers Association?

Is he or she a member of the National College for DUI Defense?

Whether or not you ultimately end up hiring a California DUI Specialist attorney, it is a smart idea to speak to a California Drunk Driving Specialist lawyer in this highly complex field.

You can read more -Why use San Diego County's Specialist in DUI and DMV Law http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html .

Or try a Free California Drunk Driving Evaluation at http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/survey.html .

You can find competent San Diego Drunk Driving Lawyers and San Diego Drunk Driving Attorneys if you look in the right place.

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html

15 to 40 years for San Diego DUI 5 Death Case!

2008-05-02T16:36:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI lawyers are told that a 20-year-old is going to prison for 15 to 45 years for driving drunk and causing a DUI crash that killed five family members and hurt three others a year ago in northwest Las Vegas.

Ronald Mark Jayne Jr. was sentenced Friday after pleading guilty in February to eight felony counts of DUI - driving under the influence and causing death or substantial bodily harm.

San Diego DUI attorneys are told Jayne had a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent when he ran a red light in an SUV and hit a van with eight people inside on May 5, 2007.

Clark County District Court Judge David Wall also ordered Jayne to pay more than $200,000 in restitution to the family of the infant, two children and adult killed in the wreck.

www.sandiegoduihelp.com

Ambien (and similar sedative-hypnotics) Causing SleepDriving in San Diego

2008-05-02T15:46:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney news

San Diego DUI lawyers often get questions about whether Ambien San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving cases can be defended as SleepDriving or Sleep Driving.

Here's some important links re: Ambien (and similar sedative-hypnotics) Causing SleepDriving

The FDA has done studies and reported that Ambien (and similar sedative-hypnotics) Causing SleepDriving is a problem.

http://www.medicine net.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=80647

http://www.fda.gov/Cder/drug/mg/zolpidem _tartrateMG.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/CDER/DRUG/infopage/sedative_hypnotics/default.htm

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/ 03/14/fda-confirms- sleep-driving- phenomena/

http://www.rxlist.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=80677

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/15drug.ready.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Saul,%20Stephanie

www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles

Top San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Lawyers List

2008-05-01T10:19:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 24 years of experience.

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates ALL of his law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego DUI / drunk driving / driving under the influence of alcohol. He has successfully helped many clients in the past year alone. http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/

Free, Online San Diego County DUI / DMV / Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California. http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

1-800-The-Law-DUI

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

1-800-The-Law-DUI

http://www.google.com

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html

http://www.yahoo.com

5 years for San Diego California DUI with Felony DUI & Child Abuse

2008-04-30T19:56:00.000-07:00

san diego criminal defense & dui attorney news

April 30, 2008

www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net

A 21-year-old San Marcos man was sentenced Tuesday to nearly five years in prison for driving San Diego DUI - drunk and causing six crashes as he led authorities on a high-speed chase with his year-old daughter in the backseat, San Diego DUI lawyers learned.

Luis Gomez, also known as Luis Umberto Perez, pleaded guilty April 1 to felony San Diego DUI, child abuse and evading police with reckless driving, along with misdemeanor counts of hit-and-run, driving with a suspended license and being an unlicensed driver, according to San Diego DUI records.

Gomez, 21, who has five prior DUI convictions on his record, was sentenced to the 56-month term by Vista Superior Court Judge Daniel Goldstein, say San Diego DUI attorneys who were present.

During a half-mile pursuit the night of Feb. 11 that reached speeds of more than 100 mph, Gomez slammed into two vehicles in San Marcos, three on state Route 78 and one in Vista before being arrested near the corner of Hibiscus and Sycamore avenues in Vista, said San Diego DUI lawyer sources.

No one was injured in any of the San Diego DUI crashes, San Diego DUI attorneys said.

www.SanDiegoDUI.com

Dealer-DMV Sticker-Plate Cases

2008-04-30T15:47:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI lawyer cases

www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/articles

Here are some Dealer-DMV Sticker-Plate recent cases in California:

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2400; 168 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2007), plus, the original 3rd DCA case is helpful (now de-published - but available - due to review by CA Supremes). A traffic – passenger - detention case. (Brendlin is back before the CA Supremes and now must deal with the DMV temp registration sticker issue.)

People v. Hernandez (2007) 146 CA4th 773; 53 CR3d 66. A traffic detention case that follows Brendlin, supra, but (Note:. tho a very good defense case, the opinion has been superseded and, thus, de-published by a grant of review by the CA Supremes on 3/21/07) Here, the trial court denied def.’s motion to suppress, and a jury found him guilty of felony and misdo resisting arrest, being under the influence of meth, and DUI of alcohol/drugs. Def. appealed and argued that the police had no reasonable grounds to stop his vehicle for having no license plates when a temporary operating permit was lawfully placed, valid on its face, and seen by the cop. The COA agreed, distinguishing the situation at bar — having no license plates — from that in case law, in which there was reasonable suspicion to stop a car with a temporary operating permit, an expired registration tab, and a missing front license plate (sic, distinguishing the recent CA Supreme decision in P. v. Saunders (2006) 38 C4th 1129; 136 P3d 859; 45 CR3d 66, holding otherwise.)

People v. Dean (2007) 158 CA4th 377; 69 CR3d 770; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 2075. Another DMV temp license sticker traffic detention case. Def. pled after his suppression motion was denied. Def. appealed on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his suppress motion and the evidence obtained in the course of a traffic stop. The COA found that the prosecution, in opposing def.’s suppression motion, failed to meet its burden of proving that there was an articulable and reasonable suspicion that def. committed a traffic violation based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the traffic stop. The COA reversed the judgment, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

In re Raymond C. (2006) 145 CA4th 1320 (de-published due to a grant of review).

Jail Sentence for woman shot by off-duty cop in San Diego DUI case

2008-04-29T15:26:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI lawyer news

April 29, 2008

www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com

VISTA California Superior Court

The woman who was unjustifiably shot by an off-duty police officer on March 15 checked into the Vista jail Monday morning to begin serving a sentence in an unrelated San Diego DUI / drunk driving case.

Rachel Leann Silva pleaded guilty on Jan. 29 to an irrelevant San Diego county California DUI - driving under the influence of alcohol after an arrest Dec. 15 in Oceanside. As part of the San Diego DUI plea, she admitted that she had a prior Riverside California DUI / drunk driving conviction from 2007, San Diego DUI court records indicate.

The woman turned herself in at the jail Monday to begin serving her San Diego DUI sentence. The jail projected her release to be May 6.

Silva gained notoriety in March when she and her 8-year-old son, Johnny, were unfortunately shot and wounded by off-duty San Diego police Officer Franklin White after an alleged confrontation in a shopping center parking lot on Old Grove Road in Oceanside.

The San Diego County District Attorney's office is reviewing the shooting incident. No charges have been filed in the case.

The 27-year-old mother reportedly had a blood-alcohol level of .15 percent, nearly twice the legal limit for driving in California, and had marijuana in her system at the time of the shooting, according to search warrant documents unsealed earlier this month. But the San Diego DUI / drunk driving allegations should have nothing to do with the shooting incident.

Further details of the December San Diego DUI / drunk driving incident that landed Silva in jail were not available.

San Diego DUI Court records indicate that on top of a 34-day jail sentence, Silva was placed on probation for five years, fined $2,276 and ordered to take part in an alcohol counseling program.

Last year, Silva pleaded guilty to child endangerment and driving under the influence in Riverside County after officers found her slumped over the steering wheel of a Honda sedan in Temecula on April 5, 2007. Silva allegedly had an open bottle of alcohol and her 1-year-old child was in the back seat, according to Riverside authorities.

Subsequent instances of DUI or drunk driving could violate the terms of her California DUI probation, San Diego DUI lawyers suspect.

www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net

Legislators seek to tax San Diego California beer, using DUI as indirect source

2008-04-29T15:15:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI Attorney beer tax story

April 29, 2008

www.sandiegoduihelp.com

Assemblyman Jim Beall (D-San Jose) proposed a tax on beer makers that would add anywhere from 5 cents to $1.80 to the price of a gallon of beer to help eliminate the state's budget deficit, and some people, including San Diego DUI Attorneys, are already showing their disapproval.

"Picketers outside of San Jose came to picket my office last week," Beall said.

San Diego DUI Lawyers are told the people came from Santa Cruz and San Francisco.

Young Democrats came and asked the pickets how they would balance the budget, San Diego DUI Attorneys heard.

"We have a state budget deficit," Beall said. "Do we want people that drink alcohol to pay for some of the costs dealing with problems created by drinking alcohol? Or do we want the general public with general taxes to pay for all of it?"

San Diego DUI Attorneys are told the tax on beer has stayed at 20 cents per gallon since 1991, but if it was adjusted for inflation it would be at 31 cents.

"One reason why the alcohol tax hasn't been raised since 1991," Beall said, "is because alcohol businesses have a very strong lobby in Sacramento. They spent $3 million in 2006, lobbying legislature to oppose any taxes on alcohol business.

"The tax would generate up to $2 billion a year," San Diego DUI Attorneys heard from Beall, "and would be used for alcohol-related programs that would reduce binge drinking, underage drinking and driving under the influence."

In 2005, alcohol-related traffic accidents killed 1,574 people and injured 30,810 in California, and alcohol played a role in 3,691 deaths statewide in 2004, according to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving Lawyers understand.

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

1-800-The-Law-DUI

http://www.google.com

San Diego DUI definition, deadline & defense - the 4 D's

2008-04-28T19:23:00.000-07:00

San Diego DUI Defense Attorney info

San Diego DUI charges?

Contact a San Diego Drunk Driving & DMV Defense Lawyer within 10 days.

San Diego DUI - Driving Under the Influence, Driving While Intoxicated, and Operating Under the Influence are related crimes, but they all possibly mean the same San Diego DUI consequences: possible loss of license, stiff fines, embarrassment, and possible jail time.

San Diego Driving under the influence, referred to as San Diego "DUI" or San Diego "drunk driving," describes operating a motor vehicle while one's blood alcohol content is above the legal limit set by California statutes, which supposedly is the level at which a person cannot drive safely.

California DUI statute has a level of .08 for adults, which means a 8/100ths of one percent by weight of alcohol to the weight of blood. This is translated into grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood in tests of blood or urine sample, or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of air in a "breath" test machine.

A combination of the use of alcohol and/or drugs can also be considered "under the influence" if based on erratic driving.

Parked in a non-moving vehicle without keys, a warm engine and the ignition on, may be a valid San Diego DUI defense.

San Diego DUI is a misdemeanor and is variously referred to as DUI, driving while intoxicated (DWI), drunk driving, or a "deuce".

There are thousands of factors that must be considered if you are charged with a San Diego DUI. The legality of your San Diego DUI arrest, San Diego DUI field sobriety tests, proper functioning San Diego DUI test equipment, correct handling of your San Diego DUI evidence, and the procedures or conduct of the San Diego DUI arresting officers are common issues in San Diego DUI Court and/or at the San Diego DMV.

Many people who believed themselves guilty discovered they could avoid serious San Diego DUI penalties when any number of these San Diego DUI variables failed to withstand legal scrutiny pursued by a San Diego DUI attorney.

The San Diego drunk driving defense lawyer at the San Diego County DUI Law Center is a very experienced attorney exclusively handling Drunk Driving & DUI charges only. Contact a San Diego DUI Lawyer today, before your 10 day San Diego DMV deadline expires. If you have been charged with DUI or drunk driving in San Diego, immediately contact a premier San Diego DUI attorney at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .