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 tho a very good defense case, the opinion has been superseded and, thus, de-published by a grant of review by the CA Supremes on 3/21/07) Here, the trial court denied def.’s motion to suppress, and a jury found him guilty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).

Leave a Reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.