Fairborn Municipal Court Judge Honored

Congratulation to Fairborn Municipal Court Judge Beth Root on her selection to the Fairborn City Schools Hall of Honor.  The Hall of Honor program recognizes the outstanding achievements of Fairborn graduates, former Fairborn faculty members and those community members who have provided exemplary service to the school district.

Judge Root, a 1985 FHS Valedictorian will be honored in a ceremony on April 24th at the Fairborn High School Auditorium.

Like Judge Root, we try to honor our home city of Fairborn by upholding the highest standards of the legal community. We hope that you consider us your Fairborn hometown attorneys. Call Charlie at (937) 318-1384 for a free Fairborn DUI consultation, and contact the Fairborn law firm of Babb & Rowland, LLC to help with your case.  We are a full service law firm dedicated to customer service.

"All I Do is DUI Defense." 24 hr. DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671 or my office at (937) 318-1384. I've been helping people accused of drunk driving for over 20 years, let me help you.

Continue Reading...

Mandatory Appearances In The Kettering Municipal Court

Continue Reading...

Drug Court Funding Available for Local Governments and Courts

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has released its 2015 solicitation for the Drug Court Discretionary Grant program. This program provides funding to state, local and tribal governments and courts looking to implement, improve, enhance, or expand drug court services.

Eligible drug court models include:

Adult Drug CourtsDriving While Intoxicated (DWI)/Driving Under the Influence (DUI) CourtsCo-Occurring Courts where those participants possess a substance abuse related charge and diagnosisVeterans Treatment CourtsTribal Healing to Wellness Courts

Court programs that combine or propose to combine drug court models with other court programs or dockets are also eligible for funding.

Applications are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on April 16, 2015 and must be submitted through Grants.gov. Applicants must register with Grants.gov prior to submitting an application.

View the full grant call and requirements.

Continue Reading...

Arizona Court of Appeals Marijuana Trafficking Case Study: Part II of II – Suspects 40 Minute Detention for K-9 Drug Unit Not Unreasonable.

Your Rights at a Stop; 10 Defenses for Drug Charges; Mitigating Sentencing; Drug Trafficking Laws; Penatlies.

This is Part 2 of our Case Study on a recent Arizona Court of Appeals ruling involving Marijuana Trafficking charges.

If you’re just joining us, here’s a quick summary of the case: Recently, an Arizona Superior Court granted suppression of the Marijuana evidence that led to the State’s dismissal of the charges. The State promptly appealed arguing that the lower court erred in dismissing the Marijuana evidence found in the vehicle the suspect was driving.   The state argued on Appeal that the detention of the suspect for 40 minutes while awaiting the drug K-9 unit was not unreasonable.

The Appeals Court agreed, and overturned the lower court’s ruling, based on totality of the circumstances at the time.   The factors that the Appellate Court considered were the police officers extensive knowledge and experience in drug trafficking detection; prior drug crimes history of the suspect; voluntary statements made by the suspect at the time of the stop; and the suspect’s consent to search the vehicle he was driving.

In this discussion we focus on criminal rights at a stop, common defenses for drug crimes, laws, and drug trafficking penalties in Arizona.

Criminal Rights at a Police Stop

In the case study, the police used the suspect’s inconsistent statement about his destination to police which were used against him. The suspect also agreed to a search of his vehicle, which led to the discovery of the boxes of Marijuana in the trunk of his rental car.

Under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution a person is afforded protection from self-incrimination. A person has the right to remain silent upon questioning by police, except to answer routine identification or procedural question during an investigative stop. But a suspect does not have to answer questions about where they were, or where they were going at an investigative stop.

At a police stop, a person has the right remain silent, including the right to refrain from answering questions about where we are going.  A person also has the right to refuse a search of their vehicle. There are a few exceptions to this including police having a valid warrant, or what is known as exigent circumstances. A person has these rights under state and federal laws, whether the Miranda warning is read to them or not. It is critical to invoke these rights. Failure to do so may result in arrest and prosecution.

In this case, the statements offered by the suspect were seemingly innocent, and had nothing to do with the illegal drugs that were in the trunk of the vehicle.  However, the officer testified that he found the suspect’s statements “perplexing” and “confusing”, which raised the officer’s suspicions of the suspect’s potential criminal activity.

Alone, the suspect’s statements may not have been sufficient to raise suspicion of criminal involvement. But the officer took into account other factors he observed, when he decided to further detain the suspect. So the seemingly innocent statements made by the suspect, were used by police against him in this case. When this happens it constitutes a form of self-incrimination.

Under the 4th Amendment, a person is protected against unlawful search and seizures. If a person consents to the search, the officer may search their vehicle without a valid search warrant. In this case the suspect consented to a search of the vehicle. But he refused to extend his consent to the contents of an unmarked, taped box in the trunk. At this point the police requested the K-9 unit to investigate the boxes with the suspicion that the boxes contained illegal drugs. It was the original consent however of the vehicle that led the discovery of the suspicious boxes in the trunk of the vehicle.

10 Common Drug Crimes Defenses

A number of defenses can be used to challenge drug charges. Which defenses your attorney uses to challenge the charges will be heavily based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. There are also, different types of defenses that made be used pre-trial or during trial. Below is a sample of 10 defenses commonly used by experienced drug crime defense lawyers:

• Reason for the stop:
• Unlawful search and seizure rights;
• Violations of Miranda Rights;
• Unlawful detention;
• Police procedural violations;
• No probable cause for arrest;
• Other constitutional violations;
• The drugs belonged to someone else;
• Entrapment;
• The suspect was unaware that they were in possession of the drugs:

Note: It is not a valid defense for someone to be unaware of the laws in Arizona regarding the legality of Marijuana. But rather, it would be a valid defense if the accused was reasonably unaware that they possessed illegal drugs, or that the vehicle they are driving contained them.

5 Sentencing Diversion or Reduction Factors

If a person is found guilty or pleads guilty to a drug crime there are multiple factors the court takes into consideration.   The general rules are that crimes involving repeat drug convictions, and higher quantities call for the most severe of penalties under the Arizona criminal justice system.

Below are some common alternatives that can be used to reduce the severity of  penalties or help a defendant avoid incarceration:

Successful completion of substance abuse program, (TASC) in place of incarceration for qualified first time offenders with no criminal history;Amount of illegal drugs involved was below the Statutory “Threshold Amount” or lower than the person had been originally accused of possessing;No weapons were involved No other aggravated circumstances were involved;No prior criminal records;Felony charges reclassified to allow which serve to reduce sentencing and penalties.

Arizona Marijuana Transportation Laws

In Arizona it is unlawful to possess, use, sell, transport or distribute Marijuana, outside of the scope of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA) A.R.S. 36 – Chapter 28.1 recreational use of Marijuana is not lawful in any form.

A person may be guilty of violating A.R.S. 13-3405 (A) (4) if they knowingly transport for sale, import into the state; offer to transport for sale, or import into this state; or transfer marijuana in Arizona.

Marijuana Trafficking Penalties

The penalties below apply to non-dangerous, non-violent, non-multiple, non-repetitive offenses:

If a person is found guilty of illegally transporting an amount of less than two pounds of Marijuana they will be convicted of a Class 3 felony. Penalties for this offense range from 2 years Mitigated to 8.75 years Aggravated; 3.5 Presumptive prison sentencing.

If a person is found guilty of illegally transporting a weight of two pounds, the Statutory Threshold Amount, under A.R.S. 13-3405 (C) or more of Marijuana, they will be convicted of a Class 2 felony.  Penalties for this offense range from 3 years Mitigated to 12.5 years Aggravated; 5 years Presumptive prison sentencing;  ineligible for probation.

Fines not less than $750.00 or three times the value of the marijuana whichever is greater up to $150,000 per charge per person or 1, 000,000 per charge per enterprise; other fines, fees, costs, and assessments; supervised probation or parole if eligible; Felony Criminal Record; Community Service or Restitution; Completion of Drug Rehabilitation or Substance Abuse Program; Loss of civil rights to vote and possess arms; Other penalties ordered by the court.

Felony Drug Defense Attorney

In Arizona, all Marijuana drug sales and trafficking convictions call for serious punishment. It is possible that a person convicted of drug sales or trafficking, could spend the the rest of their life in prison. If you face any felony drug charge, it is important that you consult an experienced felony drug defense attorney to discuss your options for defense.

James Novak, DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney is an experienced and highly skilled drug defense lawyer. As a former prosecutor he has a vast amount of litigation experience in drug charges. The Law Office of James Novak, PLLC  is exclusively limited to DUI, and criminal defense.  If retained, James Novak, Attorney will protect your rights, defend your charges, and work hard to resolve your case for the most favorable outcome possible.  Some outcomes may include dismissal, reduction of charges and  sentencing, avoidance of incarceration, and other mitigation in sentencing.

James Novak provides a free initial consultation for active charges, in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert,  and Scottsdale Arizona.   You can call by phone or send a contact form thought the website to get a return call to confidentially discuss your matter and defense options.

“You have the right remain silent, and refrain from answering questions about where you are going. You also have the right to refuse a search of your vehicle, in absence of a valid search warrant.  You have these rights whether they are read to you or not”. 

Additional Resources:

 Related Articles 

Continue Reading...

FBI Announces San Diego DMV Hearing Officer Pleads Guilty to Bribery in Federal Court, part 3- How to Win DMV APS Hearings Fair and Square

This is the third blog post on the former DMV Driver Safety Officer that plead guilty to bribery charges on February 3, 2015.  Ms. Benavidez resigned from her position in December of 2014 after the FBI raided her home and office.  Ms. Benavidez, as part of her guilty plea, admitted to inappropriately issuing temporary driver's licenses, granting suspension set asides when not warranted, and disposing of DUI driver files before they could be entered into the DMV computer system.

Please note that I learned a competitor was copying and pasting this original post.  I spent years litigating and studying administrative law (that governs DMV hearings), as well as traveling all over California to hear other attorneys lecture on this topic.  I maintain close relationships with attorneys in California to discuss developments in DMV APS hearings, and also discuss winning strategies.

The first part of the blog series touched the effect of the license suspension on DUI defendants and the FBI press release.  The second on the environment in which the DMV driver license suspensions occur- they are in a small room with just the hearing officer, a recording system, the driver's attorney and their witnesses.  This is a very close environment to cross examine a law enforcement officer- they can not run away.

In this blog post, I will discuss how to win at the DMV APS hearing.  It is not easy for all the reasons listed in the previous post- the standard is low (preponderance of the evidence), the judge is also the prosecutor, there are institutional pressures for DMV driver safety officers to suspend driver's licenses, and the appeal process is lengthy and expensive.

The first key to winning DMV hearings is to know the law.  The DMV hearing officer has the same roles as both a judge and prosecutor.  However, DMV hearing officers are not held to uphold the law- there is no DMV hearing officer equivalent to the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance.

Second, is to cite the appropriate law.  This may be intuitive, but it isn't.  Many times the difference between winning and losing is showing that you can win.  In legal environments, that means proper citations, or showing that the law can be utilized and accessed as a tool.  This is opposed to having a general idea of what the law is. An attorney showing they can win in the later stages (DMV Departmental Review, Civil Writ) the DMV is less likely to press to the later stages.

Third, object, Object, OBJECT.  Since the DMV hearing is recorded, and the only basis for a Departmental Review or civil litigation review is the audio, it is very important to preserve the record by objecting and citing the objection.  Only a skilled an experienced litigator knows when to object, and when to let procedural objections pass.  Ask your attorney about their litigation experience and success.

I must move to another blog entry to cover the remaining strategies.  The DMV hearing process is one of the most complex and difficult aspects of specializing in DUI law.  But it is the difficulty that makes it so enticing, and the victories so rewarding.  Similarly, anyone who cheats or violates the system is an affront to the system as a whole- no matter what their role.  Due to the severity of this violation, it will also be briefly discussed in the next post.?

Continue Reading...

Arizona Court of Appeals: Officer had Reasonable Suspicion to Detain based on Totality of Circumstances: Part I of II: Case Study

“Suspect’s 40 minute detention, while awaiting drug K-9 unit was not unreasonable”.

In a case decided earlier this month, an Arizona Appeals Court ruled that an officer had enough “reasonable suspicion” to detain a suspect 40 minutes while awaiting the drug K-9 unit.

The court considered the “Totality of Circumstances” or “the whole picture”, to conclude that the detention was not unreasonable.

Case Facts

The suspect was pulled over, after the police officer observed the driver swerving and traveling at varied rates of speed.

The officer approached the vehicle, and requested the driver’s license, and registration.  The driver complied as well as providing the rental car agreement.

The officer asked the driver where he was going, at which point the driver provided several answers. The officer reported that the answers were inconsistent, “confusing” and “perplexing”.   The officer reported that the responses raised the officer’s suspicions.

The officer then noticed that there were no personal belongings in the vehicle.  So he asked the driver if he was planning to stay in Phoenix AZ. The driver said no.  The fact that the suspect was not planning to stay in Phoenix, but had no personal belongings in the vehicle, elevated the officer’s suspicions of potential criminal activity in progress.

The officer decided to do a background check on the suspect. The criminal records check revealed that the suspect had an extensive history of illegal drug trafficking and manufacturing crimes in a different state.

The officer asked for the suspect’s consent to search the rental car, and the suspect consented to the search.

Upon search of the trunk, the officer discovered two cardboard shipping boxes of “very solid weight” that were unlabeled, and taped closed.  The officer asked the suspect to open the boxes, but the suspect refused.

At that point the officer requested the police department’s narcotics K-9 unit to be brought to the scene and check out the boxes. The K-unit arrived approximately 40 minutes later.

The police dog “bit one of the boxes” in the trunk, signaling to the officer that the K-9 detected drugs in the boxes. The police officer opened the boxes and found the Marijuana. 

Court Summaries 

The Superior Court of Arizona initially granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of Marijuana  discovered in the trunk of the rental car the defendant was driving. The Superior Court’s decision was made on the basis that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the suspect while the police officer waited for a narcotics dog to in check boxes found in the trunk of the vehicle.

The State appealed the Superior Court’s decision to suppress the Marijuana evidence. The state argued that the lower court erred by ruling that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the suspect in order to wait for the drug K-9 unit to arrive.

Case Analysis

The Arizona Appeals Court identified the need to evaluate the  “Totality of the Circumstances” or the big picture, in its decision as to whether or not the officer had a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting that the person was engaging in criminal activity” citing “O’Meara, 198 Ariz. at 295 ¶ 7, 9 P.3d @ 326.

The Appeals Court recognized that while a police officer must have more than a hunch or non-particularized suspicion, “reasonable suspicion” does require a minimal level of objective justification, .though considerably less than a preponderance of the evidence citing Teagle, 217 Ariz. at 24 ¶¶ 25–26, 170 P.3d  @ 273.

In this case, neither the reason for the stop, or the facts surrounding the case were in dispute. So the question for the Appeals court was “What exactly did those facts and circumstances mean?”.  

The court ruled that the detention was reasonable based on the Totality of the Circumstances in which they considered the following set of factors:      

Circumstances that led to the initial stop;Defendant driving rental car, traveling, with no personal belonging inside the vehicle;Inconsistent Statements by suspect about where he was going:Extensive criminal history of illegal drug transport and manufacturing, out of state;Unlabeled, taped boxes found in trunk of car with weight and density consistent with illegal drug packages;The police officer’s high level of expertise, skills and experience in detecting illegal drug transportation activity.

Of those factors, the two that seemed to carry the most weight with the court were the defendant’s significant drug transportation crimes history; and the police officers extensive drug trafficking detection experience and skills.

The court cited a number of cases to support the opinion that a suspect’s criminal history is considered part of the totality of circumstances; in that, the criminal history may cast suspicious light on seemingly innocent behavior  (United States v. Simson).

The court concluded that criminal history  in conjunction with other factors contributed powerfully to the reasonable suspicion determination for the officer, (United States v. White). At the same time, however, the court emphasized that criminal history  cannot be used as the sole factor in deciding if reasonable suspicion exists. Criminal history is part of the equation that can impact the officer’s judgment about whether criminal activity may be in process or occurred.  It may serve to cast suspicious light on what might otherwise be considered seemingly innocent behavior.(United States v. Simpson; United States v. Chamberlin; State v. Lee; United States v. Cotterman).

With regard to the training and expertise of this particular officer, the court cited that these attributes would allow a highly skilled officer to distinguish innocent from suspicious actions. (Teagle, 217 Ariz. at 24 ¶ 26, 170 P.3d at 273).  In that, some inferences of drug trafficking activity might well have eluded in the eye of an untrained observer. (United States v. Arvizu).

Criminal Defense Attorney Phoenix AZ

Marijuana, or any illegal drug trafficking or sales in Marijuana are serious and carry some of the most severe penalties called for under Arizona law.   In fact, its quite possible that a drug trafficking conviction can send a person to prison for the rest of their life.

In this case study above focused on one issue of challenge in a criminal defense case. But a number of arguments may exist in which a criminal case and its evidence may be challenged.  Every case holds its own unique set of circumstances.  For this reason, an effective defense strategy should be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the case.   Challenges may include constitutional rights violations such as unlawful stop, search or seizure; weaknesses in evidence; affirmative defenses; violations of police procedure and protocol; and others. We will discuss these defenses in depth, in Part II  of this series. .

You should always consult a highly skilled and experienced criminal defense attorney if you face illegal drug trafficking, sales, or intent to sell charges.   A qualified and effective criminal defense attorney will protect your rights, and defend your charges through due process in the criminal justices system.  James Novak, Drug Defense Attorney is a former prosecutor with a vast amount of litigation experience in handling drug cases of all types. He will make sure you are treated fairly, protect your rights, and fight to get the most favorable outcome in your case.  The Law Office of James Novak, PLLC defends criminal and DUI charges in Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Scottsdale, and Gilbert AZ. Experienced Attorney, James Novak provides a free consultation for active charges within his serving areas.

We hope you will stay with us to read part II of II as we examine continue our discussion.  Part II outlines Criminal Rights at a Stop; 10 Common Drug Defenses; Mitigating Sentencing; Drug Trafficking Laws; Penalties for conviction; Felony Drug  Defense Representation in Phoenix AZ.    

Additional Resources:  

 Related Articles of Interest:  

Continue Reading...

Miamisburg DUI Attorney And The Miamisburg Municipal Court

If you have been accused of a drunk driving offense in Miamisburg, contact Miamisburg DUI attorney Charles Rowland immediately!

Charles M. Rowland II regularly appears in the Miamisburg Municipal Court representing the accused drunk driver. He has established both www.MiamisburgDUI.com and www.MiamisburgOVI.com to help you access court services and learn about services provided. Access to the court concerns cases arising anywhere in Miamisburg or West Carrollton.

Miamisburg DUI Attorney Charles Rowland dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio. He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 Hotline at (937) 776-2671. You can have us at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500. Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of our blog. You can email: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

“All I do is DUI defense.”

Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield,Kettering,Vandalia,Xenia, Miamisburg,Huber Heights, Springboro, Oakwood,Beavercreek, Centerville

Continue Reading...

The Kettering Municipal Court Welcomes Judge James Long

There is a new Judge in the Kettering Municipal Court.  Long-time Kettering City prosecutor and former Public Defender James F. Long was announced as the choice to fill the spot of retiring Judge Thomas Hanna.  Judge Long  has run his own law practice and is head coach as well as assistant program coordinator of the South Dayton Knights Basketball Club. He has coached and mentored a number of sports teams in and around Kettering.  Judge Long’s educational background includes having earned a bachelor of arts in political science from Ohio Northern University and a juris doctorate from Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.  Judge Long must run again in November to retain his seat for the rest of the term, which ends in December 2017.

Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Kettering Municipal Court and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Kettering’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have an attorney at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have us sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324. 

“All I do is DUI defense.”

Continue Reading...

The Scottsdale Crime Lab cases will be reviewed by the Arizona Supreme Court

The Arizona Supreme Court has decided to review the Court of Appeals' (COA) ruling regarding whether Scottsdale DUI results can be trusted.  

Our ongoing legal battle over the defective software used by the Scottsdale Crime Lab (SCL) to measure BAC levels begins its final stage.  The Supreme Court granted our request to review the COA's decision permitting prosecutors to rely upon the measurements generated by this software as a basis for a DUI conviction. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

Over three years ago a few chromatograms (a graphical representation of a blood alcohol measurement) escaped the Scottsdale crime lab (SCL).  It was something we had never seen before. The floodgates of evidence showing forensic malpractice soon opened.  

We learned, that for several years, the SCL had known of serious defects in the software used to measure BACs.  These malfunctions include assigning an incorrect result with the incorrect person (i.e. John gets Fred's result).  No one in the lab had the expertise to explain why this was occurring, or how to "fix" it.  According to an internal email we obtained from the SCL, they "buried" this from the rest of us.

Even after the defense brought this to light, the Prosecution continued to prosecute the public using this unreliable software.  The penalties for those convicted include mandatorily incarceration and significant monetary fines (a portion of which the crime lab receives).  They are currently still using these defective measurements to incarcerate people.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

There were two primary venues for these debates: 

(1) Superior Court; and 

(2) Scottsdale City Court.  

The Superior Court (felony cases) is where these rulings originated.  The City of Scottsdale courts took a different approach.  That story will be addressed in a separate post.  In the Superior Court, the main case is State v. Herman (on appeal titled In Re Bernstein).  There were two challenges in "Herman" that ended up in the COA.  

Herman #1 (Re: Discovery) 

Because we only had access to the initial documents that appear to have been allowed out of the SCL by accident, we did not know the scope of the problem.  

We convinced two Superior Court Commissioners to hold a joint hearing.  They agreed with our arguments and issued an order to produce all chromatograms from 2011.  The Court also gave the Lab almost two months to provide them.  The deadline came and went.  The SCL admitted they did not even attempt to comply with the order.

We filed a Motion for Contempt.  The prosecution filed a Special Action asking the COA to reverse the order.  The morning before the contempt hearing, the COA stayed everything.   A few months later...

We did not get the data.  Today, the scope of the malfunctions still remains unknown. 

Herman #2 (Re: Reliability) 

After the COA's ruling, we requested a Daubert (reliability) hearing with the trial court.  This would be Arizona's first substantive Daubert hearing (fortunately, the evidence Rules changed in 2012 to permit such a hearing).   Combined, it lasted almost nine (9) months.  To our surprise, we ended up getting material information in the Daubert hearing (Herman #2) that we did not even think to request in Herman #1. 

At the same time, the Arizona Republic started to investigate our claims.  Through their public records requests (and later our own) a treasure trove of damming evidence was obtained.  

At the hearing, SCL personnel were testifying they understood the issues and put forth an “all was well” message.  However, in contrast to their testimony, the Arizona Republic obtained internal emails, that told a much different story than “all is well.”  Their "private" communications showed the court that the SCL personnel testifying, were less than forthcoming about the severity of the problems and their ability to comprehend them.

The combination of SLC personnel’s tainted testimony, and the testimony our forensic experts (including an independent forensic toxicologist, a certified quality assurance lab auditor, a and forensic software engineer), presented a powerful case that the SCL’s measurements and supporting testimony were not trustworthy. 

Arizona Court of Appeals 

As in Herman #1, the prosecution turned to the court of appeals for relief. 

Again, as in Herman #1, it was provided.  

Arizona Supreme Court

Over a year ago, we filed a Petition with the Arizona Supreme Court requesting that they: 

(1) review the court of appeals decision; 

(2) and reinstate the trial court's ruling.

A few weeks ago, the Arizona Supreme Court decided to review the matter.

WHAT'S NEXT.

The Court's decision merely means they granted part one of our request: they will hear the case. They have set oral argument on February 17, 2015 at 11:00 am.  It will be a road game for the Court, as it will be held at ASU Law School.  The oral argument is open to the public, but it is expected to be a full house.  If you want to attend, get there early.

Lawrence Koplow

Continue Reading...

Minnesota Supreme Court makes another ruling on implied consent

A couple of weeks ago we wrote about a slight change in the implied consent rule thanks to a new interpretation of the rule by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a follow-up to that post, this post will look at another decision the Minnesota Supreme Court made in relation to implied consent -- but this time, it has to do with breath tests and an individual who refuses to take one.

Implied consent compels an individual to take a breath test when they are accused of a DUI. As part of your agreement to have a driver's license, you thus "consent" to any breath test that an officer tells you to take. It's part of the privilege of driving. However, there was a significant challenge to this view of implied consent here in Minnesota. Unfortunately, it did not favor those who are accused of drunk driving.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a breath test does not constitute an unwarranted search and, thus, people do not have the right to refuse such a request by the police. This doesn't change anything, really. It's still the status quo with breath tests.

But this serves as another important reminder about how the criminal system treats DUIs. The rules are very rigid and there is very little leniency with these offenses. If you are accused of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then you need to get an attorney right away to protect your rights and help you with the case.

Source: Albert Lea Tribune, "Minnesota Supreme Court: DWI testing laws are legal," Associated Press, Feb. 12, 2015

Tags: Breath Test Refusal

Continue Reading...

FBI Announces DMV Hearing Officer Pleads Guilty to Bribery in Federal Court

California Department of Motor Vehicles- Driving Change

On February 3, 2015, the FBI issued a press release that a former DMV Driver Safety Officer pled guilty to bribery charges in federal court.  The hearing officer, Ms. Benavidez, admitted that from 2005 to 2014 she accepted over $5,000 in bribes, including $250- $750 in checks, Ray Ban sunglasses, Juicy Couture handbag, and Cheesecake Factory gift certificate.

This is disturbing for a number of reasons, but it is not completely unfathomable.  Practicing criminal defense with a specialty in DUIs, I pride myself on my diligent DMV representation.  My DMV hearings are always in person.  The DMV hearing is also an excellent opportunity to learn more about the case.

The DMV hearing is not like any other administrative hearing.  First, the hearing officer is the prosecutor and the judge.  Many hearing officers are excellent in this capacity, with knowledge in the Evidence Code and applicable case law allowing the defense attorney to present their case and make a record.  Bad hearing officers do not know the Evidence Code and believe that confrontation with an attorney is as good as being an attorney.  Good DMV hearing officers are also familiar with the applicable legal standards- the elements need only be a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The DMV hearings are also reviewed by their supervisors- no “set aside” (when the suspension is ended, and the driving privilege is resumed) is found without a supervisor Making Sure that it is the only, just result.  Finally, DMV hearings have the very strong appearance that it is not only important to be right, but to be right for the correct reasons.  I call this the algebra factor- it's not the answer, but how you got to the answer.  It is a culture in the driver safety offices that it is their job to suspend licenses, and they are encouraged to do so.

The last factor is the remedy for a poorly decided hearing.  First, there is a “departmental review.”  In this scenario, a recording of the hearing, and all documentation, is sent to a DMV office in Sacramento.  The DMV charges $125 for this review, not including what your attorney may charge.  I've learned how to maximize the departmental review based on discussions with other defense attorneys comparing tactics and results.  During the review, the driver's license is still suspended.

Or, the driver can appeal the case to the Civil Division of Superior Court.  It is not a criminal case (recall, driving is a privilege, not a right).  So the filing fee is about $365.  The court assumes the finding of fact are correct, and it is the legal standard that is reviewed.  Prior to the decision, any DUI attorney worth his salt will motion the court for interim relief- that the client be allowed to drive pending the decision.  If not granted, the appeal can take months.

Meanwhile, the driver's suspension for a standard first time, no injury, DUI can be as low as one month with a five month restricted driver's license (restricted- can only drive to school, work, or other necessary events).  After the one month hard suspension, most clients are not interested in paying more money for a court review.  Either it is a very good case, DUI while on DUI probation (one year suspension), or there is little practicality in challenging the DMV's decision.  Long story short, there is little court review of DMV decisions.

So, you have a class of people that are generally vilified, an administrative structure built on suspending licenses, and little oversight for bad decisions.  Also, DMV hearing officers are not lawyers, and need not have a bachelor's degree to qualify.  Not that lawyers are a separate class, but we are licensed by the state and are sworn to uphold both the body and spirit of the law.  We are sworn to do our best to do the right thing, whereas DMV hearing officers are not.  They are also paid well, but not great.  *A review of a DMV driver safety officer job announcement has their maximum pay at around $60,000.

It creates a perfect environment for abuse.  The pressures and stresses on lawyers can also be significant, and will be discussed in the next blog entry.  These are lawyers that San Diego US Attorney Laura Duffy called, “co-conspirators."

Continue Reading...

FBI Announces San Diego DMV Hearing Officer Pleads Guilty to Bribery in Federal Court, Part 2

Last week I wrote a blog post about the former San Diego Safety Officer (DSO, Hearing Officer) pleading guilty to bribery charges in federal court. Also, there was a brief discussion of the environment in which the DMV APS hearing takes place. APS stands for Administrative Per Se- which refers to the .08% BAC DUI license suspension. Because hearing officers are not lawyers, they are not regulated by the state. The appellate review process is extensive and expensive, so there is not a large body of law to guide hearing officers towards the right decision. By default, the right decision is to suspend the driver's license.

From the point of view of the lawyer, it can be very frustrating. In this blog post, some of those frustrations will be discussed.

In a DMV driver license hearing, all the hearing officer needs to prove is that three elements were met: that the driver was “driving” (put behind the wheel); that the driver was found to be greater than .08%; and that there was probable cause to stop the driver. The standard, because it is an administrative hearing, is a mere preponderance of the evidence- which is sometimes equated to 50%.

In a typical new client consultation for a DUI, the license can be their biggest concern. Particularly if a person is a salesperson, executive, single parent, or a number of other unique circumstances. I had one client that was a process server. And everyone, across the entire socio-economic spectrum, gets DUIs. When I tell a client their case can be dismissed and they still get their license taken away, they are crushed. And this can lead to temptation.

DUI hearings are very difficult for the reasons stated above and in the last post. From a lawyering perspective, we are taught the difference between what we know, and what we think. Even if what we “think” is the most likely scenario, it is essentially useless because it is not certain. Certain is what we know. The DMV has little incentive to follow the cold, hard evidentiary rules, as well as common sense differences between know and think, when, from their perspective, they are pulling the license of a drunk driver. In other words, who cares, or why should they care?

So a lawyer defending a driver in a DMV APS hearing can be right, and still lose. A better explanation may be that if the driver's case was a law school exam, he would win- the precise execution of evidentiary rules, and excluding all assumptions, there is no case. But in the real world, in the real DMV world, a driver's license can be suspended with a dare- if you think we're wrong, appeal it.

It falls on the lawyer to tell the bad news to the prospective driver- to be the voice of the system. It may be unfair, but there is societal pressure that supports the system- fair or not. For instance, the Union Tribune articles don't state, “single mother paid DMV employee to keep her license to keep her job and stay off welfare,” or “license suspension avoided so father can keep joint custody of his son.” But these are real world scenarios we see all the time.  Instead, the San Diego Union Tribune perceives the story as a conspiracy to keep DUI drivers on the road.

Which is the lead in to the last and final blog post in this series- how a successful San Diego DUI attorney handles- and wins- DMV APS hearings honestly and ethically.

Continue Reading...

Breaking News: Minnesota Supreme Court To Issue Bernard Decision on Wednesday

Home > Fourth Amendment > Breaking News: Minnesota Supreme Court To Issue Bernard Decision on WednesdayPosted on February 9, 2015 by Dan Koewler

We just received notice that the Minnesota Supreme Court will issue its potentially groundbreaking decision in State v. Bernard this upcoming Wednesday, February 11, 2015. In the Bernard case, the Court is being asked to decide whether it is constitutional for the government to criminalize an individual's refusal to submit to a warrantless (and thus presumptively illegal) search.

Want to know more?

You've got two days to watch the oral arguments presented in the case here.

You can read some of our speculation here.

We were given permission to file an amicus curiae brief in this case, and filed on behalf of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice and the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, two very notable and worthy defense organizations in Minnesota.

Any further speculation on this decision is pointless at this point, as we'll have our answer in two days. With hundreds of cases on hold pending this decision, Wednesday is certain to be a very big day.

Continue Reading...

Implied consent law has new wrinkle thanks to Supreme Court

We've talked about implied consent on this blog before, and what it means for all drivers in the state of Minnesota if they are accused of driving under the influence. However, a recent ruling by the Supreme Court changes the way the rule is interpreted, and it has a profound affect on people who were looking to challenge a certain aspect to the rule.

Remember that implied consent originally meant that any driver thought to be intoxicated by the police inherently consented to having a blood test done. The consent is agreed to as part of the individual obtaining a license.

However, the rule was challenged as it seemed like the police should have to obtain a warrant before going through with such a blood test -- even under implied consent. The police countered by saying that in the time it would take to obtain a warrant for a drunk driver, the individual's alcohol levels would dramatically shift.

The Supreme Court agreed with the people, saying that the police need to obtain a warrant before they are allowed to proceed with a blood test.

So where does that leave people who were arrested and forced to take a blood test prior to this ruling being made? Well, unfortunately, it looks like they are out of luck. The ruling applies now and will not have any retroactive action.

This is a significant and important change to DWI law in Minnesota, and drivers now need to be aware of this if they are accused of drunk driving.

Source: MPR, "MN court rules DUI blood testing proper in past cases," Bob Collins, Jan. 12, 2015

Tags: Blood Alcohol Tests

Continue Reading...

Supreme Court Refuses to Decide Warrantless Forcible Blood Draw Dispute

The United States Supreme Court has announced that it will not hear an appeal from Colorado by prosecutors on whether officers should be allowed to forcibly take blood from a DUI suspect without a warrant. The United States Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means that the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court on the issue will stand.

In 2012, Jack Schaufele caused a collision and the responding law enforcement suspected that Schaufele was driving under the influence. Schaufele was transported to the hospital. While at the hospital, Schaufele fell asleep or otherwise became unconscious. While unconscious, law enforcement ordered that Schaufele’s blood be withdrawn without a search warrant to determine his blood alcohol content. As a result of the blood withdrawal, it was later determined that Schaufele’s blood alcohol content was approximately three times the legal limit.

Schaufele was charged with driving under the influence, along with other charges, partly based on the blood alcohol content obtained through the warrantless blood withdrawal. At trial, the judge excluded the blood evidence because it was obtained without warrant, in violation of Schaufele’s 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Prosecutor’s appealed to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the body justifies a warrantless, forcible blood withdrawal. The argument being that, by the time it takes officers to obtain a warrant, the blood alcohol content of the suspect will decrease, thus resulting in the loss of evidence.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision as well as the decision of the United States Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the matter was, in part, influence by the 2013 landmark case of Missouri v. McNeely.

In Missouri v. McNeely, the United States Supreme Court held that a blood withdrawal was, in fact, a search which is protected under 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Although the United States Supreme Court has carved out exceptions to the warrant requirement, a forcible blood withdrawal, by itself, does not fit into any exception. Prior to this, a forcible blood withdrawal fell within the “exigent circumstances” exception based on the risk of losing a DUI suspect’s blood alcohol content through its dissipation in the body.

Missouri v. McNeely, one of the few good recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court, will stand for now.

In declining to hear Colorado prosecutors’ appeal in Schaufele’s case, the United States Supreme Court has essentially affirmed that our body is, in fact, the most private thing we own. As such, if law enforcement wants to breach that which we hold most private, it will have to strictly adhere to the requirements of the 4th Amendment.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 19th, 2015 at 7:55 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Revisit Warrantless Blood Draws for DUIs

The Supreme Court has turned down a request from prosecutors in Colorado to reconsider the use of warrantless blood draws as evidence in drunk driving cases.

The prosecutors’ request stemmed from the case of Jack Schaufele. While Schaufele lay unconscious in a Colorado hospital following a car crash, a police officer had the medical staff take a blood sample to check his BAC. The results showed Schaufele was almost three times the legal limit. However, a judge excluded the results of the test at trial because the officer had not obtained, or even tried to obtain, a search warrant.

The judge’s decision was later affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court, which cited the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v. McNeely. In that case the court upheld the suppression of a DUI suspect’s blood draw that was taken without a warrant. The majority of justices dismissed arguments that the body’s rapid metabolism of alcohol inherently creates exigent circumstances that allow for a blanket exception to the 4th Amendment and requirements to obtain a warrant for blood tests.

The court’s 2013 ruling has impacted DUI laws across the country. Last fall, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the state’s implied consent statue wasn’t enough to justify warrantless blood draws. Likewise, the Texas Supreme Court struck down that state’s “no refusal” law, which permitted law enforcement to collect blood from suspected drunk drivers who refused to be tested.

Thirteen other states supported Colorado’s request for the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing that the requirement for a warrant cripples efforts to prosecute and punish drunk drivers. Has your jurisdiction enacted different procedures in order to fast track the approval of search warrants in DUI arrests?

Continue Reading...

September Traffic Court Results

September Traffic Court Results - Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Marin, California DUI Attorney Law Office of John Stanko, Inc. HomeFirm WebsitePractice AreasContact Us « Previous | Home | Next » September Traffic Court Results |Share December 12, 2014

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc.
________________________________________
TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014

COURTCHARGERESULT
Marin Speeding Reduced to a no pointer!
Marin Speeding Reduced to a no pointer!
MarinDisobeying a signReduced to a no pointer!
Marin Illegal left turn. Out of state licensed driver.Negotiated traffic school.
Marin SpeedingDismissed!
OaklandSpeedingDismissed!
Marin Speeding on the freewayReduced to a no pointer!
Marin Speeding in Nicasio ValleyNegotiated traffic school, no license suspension.
Marin Speeding in Nicasio ValleyReduced to a no pointer!
OaklandFailure to obey a sign on The Bay Bridge/spedingDismissed!
NapaSpeeding in a commercial vehicleReduced to a no pointer!
MarinSpeeding.Reduced to a no pointer!

If you receive a speeding ticket, red light camera ticket, or any moving violation in Vallejo, San Rafael, San Francisco or Oakland, call an experienced aggressive traffic ticket attorney for help.

For more information about traffic and speeding ticket defense in Sonoma and Marin Counties and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, or for a free consultation, call Marin County traffic attorney John Stanko at 415-755-8899, or toll free at 1-877-204-8900.

Posted by John Stanko | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Contact Us 415-755-8899 Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: Search Connect Topics DUI (99) DUI Checkpoints (45) Celebrity DUI (2) DUI Field Sobriety Tests (16) Ignition Interlock Device (11) DUI Trials (2) DUI Program (24) Felony (6) Dry Reckless (1) DMV Administrative Hearings (10) Suspended Driver's License (51) Negligent Operator (4) San Francisco DMV DUI suspension (1) Oakland DMV license suspension (1) Santa Rosa DMV license suspension (1) Traffic Ticket Defense (32) Red Light Camera Tickets (11) Speeding Tickets (23) Hit and Run (1) Cell Phone and Texting Tickets (2) Criminal Defense (12) Sex Offenses (1) Assault and Battery (6) Batter on a Police Officer Battery on a Police Officer (2) Marijuana (2) Drunk in Public (1) Vandalism (1) Theft Crimes (5) Felony (8) Drug Possession (6) Child Endangerment (5) Domestic Violence (2) Evading a Police Officer (2) Trespassing (1) Resisting Arrest (2) Conspiracy (2) Embezzlement (1) Misdemeanor (5) Domestic Violence (1) Car Theft (2) Probation Violation (3) Felony (4) Drug Possession (2) Child Endangerment (1) Probation (8) Evading a Police Officer (1) NHTSA (7) Robbery (1) Drug Crimes (3) Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (1) Speed Trap (1) Recent Entries

Dec 16, 14 10:22 AMHoliday DUI Checkpoints Planed in San Rafael The City of San Rafael Police Department will be conducting drunk driving checkpoints and special...

Dec 14, 14 09:56 AMNovember 2014 Bay Area Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 13, 14 09:53 AMOctober 2014 Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 12, 14 09:50 AMSeptember Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 12, 14 09:50 AMSeptember Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Sep 25, 14 12:05 PMAugust Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ JOHN W. STANKO Attorney at Law TRAFFIC COURT...

   Main Office:
4040 Civic Center Dr #200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Phone: 415-755-8899
Toll Free: 877-204-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Vallejo Office:
312 Georgia St #200
Vallejo, CA 94590

Phone: 707-642-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Justia Legal Website Design  

Continue Reading...

October 2014 Traffic Court Results

October 2014 Traffic Court Results - Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Marin, California DUI Attorney Law Office of John Stanko, Inc. HomeFirm WebsitePractice AreasContact Us « Previous | Home | Next » October 2014 Traffic Court Results |Share December 13, 2014

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc.
________________________________________

TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014

COURTCHARGERESULT
Marin Failure to yield to a pedestrian. Dismissed!
MarinSpeeding on Hwy. 101.Dismissed!
MarinSpeeding.Reduced to a no pointer!
Marin Speeding and no insurance.Reduced to a no pointer!
Marin Speeding more than 26 mph over.Reduced to allow traffic school, no license suspension.
MarinSpeeding.Reduced to a no pointer!
YoloSpeeding.Dismissed!
YoloSpeeding.Fine reduced.
San FranciscoIllegal left turn.Reduced to a no pointer!

If you receive a speeding ticket, red light camera ticket, or any moving violation in Vallejo, San Rafael, San Francisco or Oakland, call an experienced aggressive traffic ticket attorney for help.

For more information about traffic and speeding ticket defense in Sonoma and Marin Counties and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, or for a free consultation, call Marin County traffic attorney John Stanko at 415-755-8899, or toll free at 1-877-204-8900.

Categories: Speeding Tickets, Traffic Ticket Defense Posted by John Stanko | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Speeding Tickets , Traffic Ticket Defense

Contact Us 415-755-8899 Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: Search Connect Topics DUI (99) DUI Checkpoints (45) Celebrity DUI (2) DUI Field Sobriety Tests (16) Ignition Interlock Device (11) DUI Trials (2) DUI Program (24) Felony (6) Dry Reckless (1) DMV Administrative Hearings (10) Suspended Driver's License (51) Negligent Operator (4) San Francisco DMV DUI suspension (1) Oakland DMV license suspension (1) Santa Rosa DMV license suspension (1) Traffic Ticket Defense (32) Red Light Camera Tickets (11) Speeding Tickets (23) Hit and Run (1) Cell Phone and Texting Tickets (2) Criminal Defense (12) Sex Offenses (1) Assault and Battery (6) Batter on a Police Officer Battery on a Police Officer (2) Marijuana (2) Drunk in Public (1) Vandalism (1) Theft Crimes (5) Felony (8) Drug Possession (6) Child Endangerment (5) Domestic Violence (2) Evading a Police Officer (2) Trespassing (1) Resisting Arrest (2) Conspiracy (2) Embezzlement (1) Misdemeanor (5) Domestic Violence (1) Car Theft (2) Probation Violation (3) Felony (4) Drug Possession (2) Child Endangerment (1) Probation (8) Evading a Police Officer (1) NHTSA (7) Robbery (1) Drug Crimes (3) Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (1) Speed Trap (1) Recent Entries

Dec 16, 14 10:22 AMHoliday DUI Checkpoints Planed in San Rafael The City of San Rafael Police Department will be conducting drunk driving checkpoints and special...

Dec 14, 14 09:56 AMNovember 2014 Bay Area Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 13, 14 09:53 AMOctober 2014 Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 12, 14 09:50 AMSeptember Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 12, 14 09:50 AMSeptember Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Sep 25, 14 12:05 PMAugust Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ JOHN W. STANKO Attorney at Law TRAFFIC COURT...

   Main Office:
4040 Civic Center Dr #200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Phone: 415-755-8899
Toll Free: 877-204-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Vallejo Office:
312 Georgia St #200
Vallejo, CA 94590

Phone: 707-642-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Justia Legal Website Design  

Continue Reading...

November 2014 Bay Area Traffic Court Results

November 2014 Bay Area Traffic Court Results - Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Marin, California DUI Attorney Law Office of John Stanko, Inc. HomeFirm WebsitePractice AreasContact Us « Previous | Home | Next » November 2014 Bay Area Traffic Court Results |Share December 14, 2014

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc.
________________________________________

TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014

COURTCHARGERESULT
MarinSpeeding.Reduced to a no pointer!
Marin Speeding, Out of State driver.Traffic school allowed.
Marin Speeding, designated vehicle.Traffic school.
MarinSpeeding, over 100 mph.No license suspension.
MarinSpeeding.Reduced to a no pointer!

If you receive a speeding ticket, red light camera ticket, or any moving violation in Vallejo, San Rafael, San Francisco or Oakland, call an experienced aggressive traffic ticket attorney for help.

For more information about traffic and speeding ticket defense in Sonoma and Marin Counties and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, or for a free consultation, call Marin County traffic attorney John Stanko at 415-755-8899, or toll free at 1-877-204-8900.

Categories: Red Light Camera Tickets, Speeding Tickets, Traffic Ticket Defense Posted by John Stanko | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Red Light Camera Tickets , Speeding Tickets , Traffic Ticket Defense

Contact Us 415-755-8899 Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: Search Connect Topics DUI (99) DUI Checkpoints (45) Celebrity DUI (2) DUI Field Sobriety Tests (16) Ignition Interlock Device (11) DUI Trials (2) DUI Program (24) Felony (6) Dry Reckless (1) DMV Administrative Hearings (10) Suspended Driver's License (51) Negligent Operator (4) San Francisco DMV DUI suspension (1) Oakland DMV license suspension (1) Santa Rosa DMV license suspension (1) Traffic Ticket Defense (32) Red Light Camera Tickets (11) Speeding Tickets (23) Hit and Run (1) Cell Phone and Texting Tickets (2) Criminal Defense (12) Sex Offenses (1) Assault and Battery (6) Batter on a Police Officer Battery on a Police Officer (2) Marijuana (2) Drunk in Public (1) Vandalism (1) Theft Crimes (5) Felony (8) Drug Possession (6) Child Endangerment (5) Domestic Violence (2) Evading a Police Officer (2) Trespassing (1) Resisting Arrest (2) Conspiracy (2) Embezzlement (1) Misdemeanor (5) Domestic Violence (1) Car Theft (2) Probation Violation (3) Felony (4) Drug Possession (2) Child Endangerment (1) Probation (8) Evading a Police Officer (1) NHTSA (7) Robbery (1) Drug Crimes (3) Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (1) Speed Trap (1) Recent Entries

Dec 16, 14 10:22 AMHoliday DUI Checkpoints Planed in San Rafael The City of San Rafael Police Department will be conducting drunk driving checkpoints and special...

Dec 14, 14 09:56 AMNovember 2014 Bay Area Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 13, 14 09:53 AMOctober 2014 Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 12, 14 09:50 AMSeptember Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 12, 14 09:50 AMSeptember Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Sep 25, 14 12:05 PMAugust Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ JOHN W. STANKO Attorney at Law TRAFFIC COURT...

   Main Office:
4040 Civic Center Dr #200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Phone: 415-755-8899
Toll Free: 877-204-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Vallejo Office:
312 Georgia St #200
Vallejo, CA 94590

Phone: 707-642-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Justia Legal Website Design  

Continue Reading...

September Traffic Court Results

September Traffic Court Results - Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Marin, California DUI Attorney Law Office of John Stanko, Inc. HomeFirm WebsitePractice AreasContact Us « Previous | Home | Next » September Traffic Court Results |Share December 12, 2014

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc.
________________________________________
TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014

COURTCHARGERESULT
Marin Speeding Reduced to a no pointer!
Marin Speeding Reduced to a no pointer!
MarinDisobeying a signReduced to a no pointer!
Marin Illegal left turn. Out of state licensed driver.Negotiated traffic school.
Marin SpeedingDismissed!
OaklandSpeedingDismissed!
Marin Speeding on the freewayReduced to a no pointer!
Marin Speeding in Nicasio ValleyNegotiated traffic school, no license suspension.
Marin Speeding in Nicasio ValleyReduced to a no pointer!
OaklandFailure to obey a sign on The Bay Bridge/spedingDismissed!
NapaSpeeding in a commercial vehicleReduced to a no pointer!
MarinSpeeding.Reduced to a no pointer!

If you receive a speeding ticket, red light camera ticket, or any moving violation in Vallejo, San Rafael, San Francisco or Oakland, call an experienced aggressive traffic ticket attorney for help.

For more information about traffic and speeding ticket defense in Sonoma and Marin Counties and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, or for a free consultation, call Marin County traffic attorney John Stanko at 415-755-8899, or toll free at 1-877-204-8900.

Posted by John Stanko | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Contact Us 415-755-8899 Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: Search Connect Topics DUI (99) DUI Checkpoints (45) Celebrity DUI (2) DUI Field Sobriety Tests (16) Ignition Interlock Device (11) DUI Trials (2) DUI Program (24) Felony (6) Dry Reckless (1) DMV Administrative Hearings (10) Suspended Driver's License (51) Negligent Operator (4) San Francisco DMV DUI suspension (1) Oakland DMV license suspension (1) Santa Rosa DMV license suspension (1) Traffic Ticket Defense (32) Red Light Camera Tickets (11) Speeding Tickets (23) Hit and Run (1) Cell Phone and Texting Tickets (2) Criminal Defense (12) Sex Offenses (1) Assault and Battery (6) Batter on a Police Officer Battery on a Police Officer (2) Marijuana (2) Drunk in Public (1) Vandalism (1) Theft Crimes (5) Felony (8) Drug Possession (6) Child Endangerment (5) Domestic Violence (2) Evading a Police Officer (2) Trespassing (1) Resisting Arrest (2) Conspiracy (2) Embezzlement (1) Misdemeanor (5) Domestic Violence (1) Car Theft (2) Probation Violation (3) Felony (4) Drug Possession (2) Child Endangerment (1) Probation (8) Evading a Police Officer (1) NHTSA (7) Robbery (1) Drug Crimes (3) Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (1) Speed Trap (1) Recent Entries

Dec 16, 14 10:22 AMHoliday DUI Checkpoints Planed in San Rafael The City of San Rafael Police Department will be conducting drunk driving checkpoints and special...

Dec 14, 14 09:56 AMNovember 2014 Bay Area Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 13, 14 09:53 AMOctober 2014 Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS October 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 12, 14 09:50 AMSeptember Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Dec 12, 14 09:50 AMSeptember Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS September 2014 COURT CHARGE RESULT...

Sep 25, 14 12:05 PMAugust Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ JOHN W. STANKO Attorney at Law TRAFFIC COURT...

   Main Office:
4040 Civic Center Dr #200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Phone: 415-755-8899
Toll Free: 877-204-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Vallejo Office:
312 Georgia St #200
Vallejo, CA 94590

Phone: 707-642-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Justia Legal Website Design  

Continue Reading...