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...

When Police Do Bad Things During Los Angeles DUI Stops – Like Shoot Dogs

LAPD officers engage in the dangerous work of patrolling our streets and stopping drivers suspected of Los Angeles DUI and other crimes. Without these courageous men and women, it is absolutely true that our surface streets and freeways would be more dangerous and more people would die and get hurt.

We applaud these efforts.

But we also want to make sure that patrol officers obey the law and respect the rights of suspected DUI drivers. So what restrictions on officer behaviors are appropriate and required? And when can officers effectively break standard procedure?

A sad but compelling case out of Mesa County, Colorado speaks to these two questions.

According to AP reports, a sheriff’s deputy near Grand Junction Colorado shot and killed a dog that allegedly attacked him while he was struggling with a DUI suspect. Reports say that police responded to an emergency call at a grocery store last Monday night. A man allegedly had been driving all over the road. When police arrived, the suspect ran away, and his shepherd mix dog jumped onto the deputy and bit him on the upper thigh. The deputy instinctively shot the dog and killed it.

According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the suspect, Joseph McMillan, said that his dog had not been vaccinated for things like rabies, so now local animal services is submitting the dog’s body for tests for rabies.

In this case, at least according to reports, what the officer did sounds completely appropriate.

Although officers generally do not like to brandish their weapons against dogs or people, they do deserve and need the right to protect themselves (and victims) from harm caused by wild, erratic and dangerous people and animals.

Some cases, however, are ambiguous.

For instance, the shootings in Ferguson, Missouri this summer catalyzed intense and divisive debate over the use of police force in emergency situations. And we have covered many instances in which police officers have said or done things that are either inappropriate or downright ridiculous/Unconstitutional after DUI stops.

What should you do if you suspect that police behaved inappropriately (or even Unconstitutionally) during your DUI stop, tests or arrest?

The short answer is: take action by getting in touch with a qualified Los Angeles DUI lawyer as quickly as possible. Call attorney Michael Kraut and leverage his knowledge to obtain the results you need.

Have you been arrested for a DUI in Los Angeles? If so, please contact DUI defense attorney Michael Kraut at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our building is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

Random Boat Stops and the 4th Amendment

Posted on May 1, 2007 by Ken Gibson § 31.124 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code states, “an enforcement officer may stop and board a vessel . . . and may inspect the boat” to determine whether it is in compliance with the various provisions of the Code.

What this means for the average lake-goer is that an officer has the power to stop his or her boat without probable cause or a reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Basically, a law enforcement officer may board any boat, for absolutely any reason and, once aboard, may legally come into contact with evidence of a possible crime, like boating while intoxicated.

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas recently discussed whether or not this statute violates the 4th Amendment’s ban on illegal searches. The court held in Schenekl v. State that it does not.

It may be difficult to understand how a random stop, unsupported by probable cause, could be constitutional. The court, in making this determination, applied a two-prong test, weighing the State’s interest in the search against the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law enforcement.

The court held that the State has a strong interest in protecting its citizens and promoting water safety through random safety checks. The court decided that, in contrast, the level of intrusion to the individual during a random boat stop is minimal.

Thus, while it may seem counter-intuitive, the court held random safety checks of boats to be constitutional and not a violation of the 4th Amendment. This information is certainly important to keep in mind while spending time at the lake this spring and summer.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.austindwiattorneyblog.com/admin/trackback/26533

View the original article here

Continue Reading...