San Francisco, Los Angeles DUI Rates Drop Thanks to…Taxis?

In September 2014, Los Angeles DUI rates dropped, as did similar rates in several cities across the nation. Many observers credit a new trend in cab services based on apps!

Uber and other mobile friendly taxi services have revolutionized American perceptions of taxis. People no longer have to wait or hope to catch a cab at a certain corner. They can call up a town car at the touch of a button, and they don’t have to carry cash. With GPS location tracking, a taxi can be dispatched to a waiting passenger without that passenger ever placing a call.

Taxi companies are increasingly marketing their services toward younger, affluent adults. They are also focusing on the high-risk demographic that is more likely to go out to bars and clubs more often.

And it’s working.

Two companies in particular have seen a growing demand for their business, Lyft and Uber. They present themselves as trendy companies, marketing themselves on bathroom walls and underneath bar stools. Their goal is to make a taxicab seem cool enough to call.

The arrival of these services and the advent of other so-called “rideshare” programs have had a measurable impact. San Francisco DUI rates have consistently fallen since Uber and other modern taxi companies started service there. DUI arrests have fallen by nearly 10% in Seattle, since the expansion of Uber’s taxicabs. In 2013, Los Angeles saw a 14% drop after a 10% increase in 2012. The difference? The availability of ride-share services.

There’s a positive, direct correlation between decreasing DUI arrests and these services becoming available to young adults. If this trend continues, we’ll likely see these services expand and receive additional media coverage in the near future. If revenue is any indication, rideshare services are here to stay; hopefully, they’ll continue to drive down DUI rates in cities across the country.

Do you need assistance constructing an appropriate response to a DUI charge? Look to the Kraut Law Group’s Michael Kraut for insight and peace of mind. Mr. Kraut is an experience Los Angeles DUI attorney with many relevant connections in the local legal community.

Did you get arrested for a DUI in Los Angeles? If so, contact Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Michael Kraut for assistance by phone at (323) 464-6453 or online. We’re located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

San Francisco DUI Attorney on constitutionality of police stops

Posted by Paul Burglin on Mon, May 12, 2014

Whether the police lawfully stopped you by reason of a reported complaint to the police about your manner of driving depends on what the United States Supreme Court refers to as “the totality of circumstances.” Last month, the high court reviewed the trial court record of a vehicle enforcement stop in Berkeley, California, in a case called Navarette v. California. 

     In this particular case, the enforcement stop was deemed constitutional based on the following facts:

•   Use of 911 system (suggestive that caller was not concerned about the report being traced back to him);

•   Detailed description of driving which was consistent with the driving of an impaired motorist (i.e., it was more than just a conclusory statement that the suspect was a drunk driver---it specifically described a reckless manner of driving);

•   Detailed description of car (the vehicle style and license plate number were provided)

•   Description of location and direction of the vehicle was given;

•   Contemporaneous report (i.e., it just happened)

     Because the Navarette Court in this 5-4 decision agreed that these facts amounted to "a close call" in terms of upholding the warrantless stop, any set of facts that amount to something less than the aforementioned circumstances is subject to the suppression of evidence with a California Penal Code section 1538.5 motion.

     Thus, if you were stopped for no reason other than somebody having reported you or your car to the police as a drunk driver, it may be possible with the assistance of knowledgeable defense counsel to have the evidence against you (e.g., field sobriety tests and chemical test evidence) thrown out of court and the charges against you dismissed.  This remedy is mandated by the federal exclusionary rule to deter police from violating the Fourth Amendment.

     If you were you stopped by the police we can review the report and any audio and video tape in the case and determine if the stop was constitutional.  I am a Board Certified DUI defense lawyer and ready to defend you---call me today.    

Continue Reading...

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Wed, May 21, 2014

Always Poll The Jury Following A Guilty Verdict!

People v. Jones (2013) No. 1-11-3586 (Unpublished)

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Second Division.

It often seems like a waste of time and gratuitous torment, but this case demonstrates that polling a jury after a guilty verdict occasionally bears fruit. 

A guilty verdict was announced by the foreperson following deliberations. The court told the jurors it was “going to ask each and every one of you whether or not that verdict was your verdict and if it's still your verdict.” After polling four jurors, the following exchange occurred:

“THE COURT: Nicholas Mack, was that your verdict and is this now your verdict?

JUROR MACK: No, but yes and no. 

THE COURT: Well, your answer can't be yes and no. Is that your verdict now?

JUROR MACK: Yes. 

THE COURT: Okay. And was that your verdict when you signed the verdict paper?

JUROR MACK: No. 

THE COURT: Okay, when you signed the verdict, that was not your verdict, a finding of guilty?

JUROR MACK: According—excuse me, according to the law, yes. But, it was other things that I felt that made him not guilty.

THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask you that question again: Was that your verdict and is this now your verdict that he is guilty?

JUROR MACK: Yes.”

Defendant appealed the guilty verdict on the ground that the trial judge erred in the way he questioned the juror and that the juror’s equivocal responses created doubt about the validity of the verdict.

The appellate court made the following points based on prior case law:

The purpose of polling a jury is to determine that the verdict accurately reflects each juror's vote and that the vote was not the result of coercion.While the trial court should not turn the polling process into an opportunity for further deliberations, the court also must not hinder a juror's expression of dissent.If a juror indicates some hesitancy or ambivalence in his or her answer, then the trial judge must determine the juror's present intent by affording the juror the opportunity to make an unambiguous reply as to his or her present state of mind.If the court determines a juror dissents from the verdict, the proper remedy is for the trial court, on its own motion if necessary, to either direct the jury to retire for further deliberations or to discharge the jury. The trial court's determination as to the voluntariness of a juror's assent to a verdict will not be set aside unless the trial court's conclusion is clearly unreasonable. The Court affirmed the conviction, determining that the juror's response established his agreement that defendant was guilty under the law, and that the jury verdict reflected his intentions.  It further determined that the complete colloquy indicated the juror was given the opportunity to dissent and ultimately stated that the guilty verdict reflected his vote.  Finally, it found the trial court’s determination that the juror voluntarily assented to the verdict was reasonable.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  One cannot determine the tone of the judge’s questioning from the cold transcript (well, maybe you can!), but that is the key as to whether this juror was bullied by the trial court into capitulating. The defense made a post-trial motion for a new trial, contending that the verdict was not unanimous. However, it does not appear that any objection was made to the judge’s manner of questioning as it occurred.  One tactic the defense might have considered is to request an immediate recess once the juror responded, “No, but yes and no.” What would you have done?  Have you ever even prepared for this type of response from a juror being polled? Will you ever pass on the right to poll a jury after reading this case?

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"
 

Continue Reading...

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Wed, May 21, 2014

Always Poll The Jury Following A Guilty Verdict!

People v. Jones (2013) No. 1-11-3586 (Unpublished)

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Second Division.

It often seems like a waste of time and gratuitous torment, but this case demonstrates that polling a jury after a guilty verdict occasionally bears fruit. 

A guilty verdict was announced by the foreperson following deliberations. The court told the jurors it was “going to ask each and every one of you whether or not that verdict was your verdict and if it's still your verdict.” After polling four jurors, the following exchange occurred:

“THE COURT: Nicholas Mack, was that your verdict and is this now your verdict?

JUROR MACK: No, but yes and no. 

THE COURT: Well, your answer can't be yes and no. Is that your verdict now?

JUROR MACK: Yes. 

THE COURT: Okay. And was that your verdict when you signed the verdict paper?

JUROR MACK: No. 

THE COURT: Okay, when you signed the verdict, that was not your verdict, a finding of guilty?

JUROR MACK: According—excuse me, according to the law, yes. But, it was other things that I felt that made him not guilty.

THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask you that question again: Was that your verdict and is this now your verdict that he is guilty?

JUROR MACK: Yes.”

Defendant appealed the guilty verdict on the ground that the trial judge erred in the way he questioned the juror and that the juror’s equivocal responses created doubt about the validity of the verdict.

The appellate court made the following points based on prior case law:

The purpose of polling a jury is to determine that the verdict accurately reflects each juror's vote and that the vote was not the result of coercion.While the trial court should not turn the polling process into an opportunity for further deliberations, the court also must not hinder a juror's expression of dissent.If a juror indicates some hesitancy or ambivalence in his or her answer, then the trial judge must determine the juror's present intent by affording the juror the opportunity to make an unambiguous reply as to his or her present state of mind.If the court determines a juror dissents from the verdict, the proper remedy is for the trial court, on its own motion if necessary, to either direct the jury to retire for further deliberations or to discharge the jury. The trial court's determination as to the voluntariness of a juror's assent to a verdict will not be set aside unless the trial court's conclusion is clearly unreasonable. The Court affirmed the conviction, determining that the juror's response established his agreement that defendant was guilty under the law, and that the jury verdict reflected his intentions.  It further determined that the complete colloquy indicated the juror was given the opportunity to dissent and ultimately stated that the guilty verdict reflected his vote.  Finally, it found the trial court’s determination that the juror voluntarily assented to the verdict was reasonable.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  One cannot determine the tone of the judge’s questioning from the cold transcript (well, maybe you can!), but that is the key as to whether this juror was bullied by the trial court into capitulating. The defense made a post-trial motion for a new trial, contending that the verdict was not unanimous. However, it does not appear that any objection was made to the judge’s manner of questioning as it occurred.  One tactic the defense might have considered is to request an immediate recess once the juror responded, “No, but yes and no.” What would you have done?  Have you ever even prepared for this type of response from a juror being polled? Will you ever pass on the right to poll a jury after reading this case?

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"
 

Continue Reading...

San Francisco DUI Attorney Paul Burglin NCDD Journal Case Highlights

Posted by Paul Burglin on Wed, May 21, 2014

Always Poll The Jury Following A Guilty Verdict!

People v. Jones (2013) No. 1-11-3586 (Unpublished)

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Second Division.

It often seems like a waste of time and gratuitous torment, but this case demonstrates that polling a jury after a guilty verdict occasionally bears fruit. 

A guilty verdict was announced by the foreperson following deliberations. The court told the jurors it was “going to ask each and every one of you whether or not that verdict was your verdict and if it's still your verdict.” After polling four jurors, the following exchange occurred:

“THE COURT: Nicholas Mack, was that your verdict and is this now your verdict?

JUROR MACK: No, but yes and no. 

THE COURT: Well, your answer can't be yes and no. Is that your verdict now?

JUROR MACK: Yes. 

THE COURT: Okay. And was that your verdict when you signed the verdict paper?

JUROR MACK: No. 

THE COURT: Okay, when you signed the verdict, that was not your verdict, a finding of guilty?

JUROR MACK: According—excuse me, according to the law, yes. But, it was other things that I felt that made him not guilty.

THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask you that question again: Was that your verdict and is this now your verdict that he is guilty?

JUROR MACK: Yes.”

Defendant appealed the guilty verdict on the ground that the trial judge erred in the way he questioned the juror and that the juror’s equivocal responses created doubt about the validity of the verdict.

The appellate court made the following points based on prior case law:

The purpose of polling a jury is to determine that the verdict accurately reflects each juror's vote and that the vote was not the result of coercion.While the trial court should not turn the polling process into an opportunity for further deliberations, the court also must not hinder a juror's expression of dissent.If a juror indicates some hesitancy or ambivalence in his or her answer, then the trial judge must determine the juror's present intent by affording the juror the opportunity to make an unambiguous reply as to his or her present state of mind.If the court determines a juror dissents from the verdict, the proper remedy is for the trial court, on its own motion if necessary, to either direct the jury to retire for further deliberations or to discharge the jury. The trial court's determination as to the voluntariness of a juror's assent to a verdict will not be set aside unless the trial court's conclusion is clearly unreasonable. The Court affirmed the conviction, determining that the juror's response established his agreement that defendant was guilty under the law, and that the jury verdict reflected his intentions.  It further determined that the complete colloquy indicated the juror was given the opportunity to dissent and ultimately stated that the guilty verdict reflected his vote.  Finally, it found the trial court’s determination that the juror voluntarily assented to the verdict was reasonable.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  One cannot determine the tone of the judge’s questioning from the cold transcript (well, maybe you can!), but that is the key as to whether this juror was bullied by the trial court into capitulating. The defense made a post-trial motion for a new trial, contending that the verdict was not unanimous. However, it does not appear that any objection was made to the judge’s manner of questioning as it occurred.  One tactic the defense might have considered is to request an immediate recess once the juror responded, “No, but yes and no.” What would you have done?  Have you ever even prepared for this type of response from a juror being polled? Will you ever pass on the right to poll a jury after reading this case?

Have you been charged with a DUI San Francisco, DUI Marin, DUI Sonoma or DUI Napa? Paul Burglin is a Board Certified in DUI Defense San Francisco Bay area attorney who for over 25 years has specialized in drunk driving defense in San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa and surrounding communities. He is also the co-author of "California Drunk Driving Law"
 

Continue Reading...