What is the Statute of Limitations for a DUI?

When someone is released after being arrested for a California DUI, they’re usually given a citation which includes a court date and courthouse location.  It is not uncommon, however, for DUI defendants to show up to court on the date specified only to have the clerk tell them that their case is not on the court’s calendar because the prosecutor has not yet filed charges. They’re then told that they’ll receive a notification in the mail with a new date once the prosecutor files charges.

There are several steps that occur, usually over the course of a couple of months, before DUI charges can be filed.

The arresting agency must first complete their report. This includes the actual written report, the interview of witnesses, the examination of evidence, and the preparation of any video footage.

Once the law enforcement agency completes its report, their file is sent to the prosecuting agency. Here in Southern California, the prosecuting agency is usually a City Attorney or a District Attorney. The prosecuting agency then reviews the file which was given to them by the arresting law enforcement agency and determines if there is enough evidence to file charges.

Often is the case that, by the time this process is complete, the date written on the bottom of the citation has come and gone.

So when this happens, the question arises, “How long does the prosecutor have to file the charges?”

California Penal Code section 802 states, “Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), prosecution for an offense not punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison shall be commenced within one year after commission of the offense.” Subsections (b), (c), and (d) are not applicable to DUI cases. Therefore the statute of limitations on any misdemeanor DUI is one year.

So, just because a case is not filed by the date on the citation does not mean the case is gone or that the prosecutor simply forgot to file charges. They have a year.

People are also mistaken when they believe that the statute of limitation on a DUI has passed simply because they’ve done nothing on their case for more than a year. In other words, just because you’ve ignored that DUI you got arrested for seven years ago does not necessarily mean that the statute of limitations has run. If charges were filed within a year of your arrest regardless of what happened afterwards, the statute of limitations has not run. 

Continue Reading...

Nevada Supreme Court Holds State's Implied Consent Statute Unconstitutional

Home > Fourth Amendment > Nevada Supreme Court Holds State's Implied Consent Statute UnconstitutionalPosted on October 17, 2014 by Jud Nichols

Another state in our union has joined the bandwagon of those requiring warrants in DWI cases.

In a unanimous decision, the Nevada Supreme Court held that, in light of Missouri v. McNeely, there was no basis for warrantless searches of drivers’ blood, as allowed per Nevada's now-unconstitutional statute.

Interestingly, a spokesperson for a Nevada Police Department stated that it won’t affect the state’s day-to-day operations! How is this possible?

Well, unlike Minnesota, Nevada changed its policies shortly after McNeely, and started obtaining warrants.   

Also unlike Minnesota, as a Nevada attorney explained, this decision means a couple important changes in the law: first, now police are going to have to go get a warrant or get true knowing and voluntary consent (as is not fully clarified in Minnesota DWI law), and second, a person can say, “no, I’m not taking your test” (something that cannot be said in our state without being charged with refusal).  

This decision is more evidence of a trend in our county to require warrants in DWI cases, rather than relying on an exception to the warrant requirement, such as "consent," as is being done in Minnesota.

Will our state jump on board soon? We're doing our best to expedite this possibility. 

Continue Reading...

Texas Finds Per Se DWI Search Statute Unconstitutional

Posted on August 15, 2014 by Jud Nichols

If we told you Texans were smarter than Minnesotans, you would laugh all the way to the Alamo.

That is, perhaps, unless you happened to stumble upon the recent Texas Supreme Court Decision of Aviles v. The State of Texas. In the wake of last year’s Missouri v. McNeely decision, the various States have all been given their own opportunity to interpret exactly how to protect the constitutional rights of drivers suspected of being impaired–and Texas decided to respect the rights of those drivers, rather than to water them down.

In Aviles v. The State of Texas, the Texas Supreme Court held the state’s warrantless search of Aviles’s blood to be without an exception, and therefore, unconstitutional. The procedural background of the case parallels Brooks in that Aviles was remanded from the U.S. Supreme Court be decided in light of McNeely.

The facts of Aviles are pretty straightforward: after Aviles was arrested for DWI, the officer brought up his laptop and discovered Aviles had two prior DWI’s. Bingo! The officer no longer needed a warrant because of a Texas statute permitting a police officer “to take a blood specimen from DWI suspect without a warrant if the officer has credible information that the suspect has been previously convicted on at least two prior occasions of DWI.”

Before forcing a blood draw, however, the officer asked Aviles if he would voluntarily submit to a breath or blood test. Interesting question because two aspects of it further distinguishes Texas from Minnesota: (1) there was no urine test offered because they do not withstand scientific scrutiny to be allowed in court; and (2) the officer, attempting to elicit valid consent, used the word “voluntary” because it must be free and voluntary to be legal consent—a question never asked in Minnesota DWI cases.

But, Aviles declined the warrantless search (yet another distinguishing aspect: he wasn't automatically charged with a crime). Herein lies the crucial moment: there is a failed attempt to elicit consent for a warrantless search that does not seem to have an exception. Does the officer have to get a warrant?

The officer took a test against Aviles’s will, relying on the Texas Statute for the “two prior convictions” exception. But does McNeely leave room for such a per se exception? The Texas Supreme Court said “no.” The court instead held that the state must take into account the totality of the circumstances present in each case, specifically noting that “it was incumbent upon the State to prove the warrantless blood draw was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.”

Texas’s conclusion is the polar opposite of the one reached by our own Court of Appeals in Bernard (a case which is currently being reviewed by our own Minnesota Supreme Court). Let’s hope that Minnesota follows the lead of Texas, and everyone can start chanting “Don’t Mess With the Constitution.”

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/316525

Continue Reading...