Category: Driving Under the Influence

California DUI | Los Angeles DUI Lawyer| California DUI Defense | No Cuffs

Superior Court Of California, County of Colusa

Posted by Brianna Wilkins on May 4, 2012

If you have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs in the state of California, it is important to know the location of the courthouse where your arraignment will be held. If there are multiple courthouses in the county, please contact a skilled California DUI / DWI defense attorney for more information.

Colusa County Superior Court
547 Market Street, Colusa, CA 95932

» Colusa County Superior Court of California website.

Getting arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI can be a frightening experience. Suspected drunk drivers face a legal labyrinth that can seem daunting. A drunk driving case generates two separate cases – in criminal court, and at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A California attorney with experience defending drinking and driving cases can help drivers navigate through both the DMV hearing and the court case.

» Return to California Superior Courts, general information

Superior Court Of California, County of Merced

Posted by Brianna Wilkins on May 4, 2012

Superior Court Of California, County of Merced

Merced County Superior Court
627 W. 21st Street, Merced, CA 95340

» Merced County Superior Court of California website.

» Return to California Superior Courts, general information

Superior Court Of California, County of Stanislaus

Posted by Brianna Wilkins on May 4, 2012

Superior Court Of California, County of Stanislaus

Stanislaus County Superior Court
800 11th Street, Modesto, CA 95354

Turlock Courthouse
300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA 95380

Traffic & Small Claims
2260 Floyd Avenue, Modesto, CA 95355

Juvenile Court
2215 Blue Gum Avenue, Modesto, CA 95356

» Stanislaus County Superior Court of California website.

» Return to California Superior Courts, general information

Examination of a Prosecution Expert

Posted by Darren Kavinoky on May 4, 2012

California Criminal Defense Attorney – Examination of a Prosecution Expert

After a prosecutor calls the arresting officer to testify in a California DUI / DWI trial, the second witness is usually an analyst from the crime lab – their “expert.” The prosecution expert’s testimony always supports the theory that the defendant is guilty, but an experienced drunk driving criminal defense lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm will aggressively cross-examine the expert and call defense experts who will contradict the prosecution witness’s testimony.

The prosecution will typically begin by having the analyst describe his or her education and training in an effort to build credibility. The expert may then discuss how field sobriety tests help an officer to determine whether a driver was under the influence. The expert may then offer an opinion as to how well the defendant performed on the tests and what this says about the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC).

Prosecution experts typically make presumptions about the defendant’s level of intoxication that are based on general scientific principles and assumptions. However, these assumptions don’t consider a defendant’s tolerance level, size, absorption rate, or meals eaten prior to drinking. The expert will describe any chemical tests the driver took, including how they were performed, the accuracy of the tests, and what this says about the level of alcohol in the defendant’s system.

The prosecutor might ask the expert to describe how alcohol affects an individual mentally and physically, and to cite specific examples of behavior that show that an individual was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Finally, the prosecution’s expert may make statements about hypothetical situations or drivers, and use these situations and conclusions to support the charge that the defendant in this specific drunk driving trial was also under the influence. Experts in driving under the influence cases can rely on hearsay evidence (out of court statements offered to prove the truth) in forming their opinions and conclusions.

Because a prosecution expert can make hypothetical assumptions about the based on hearsay, it’s essential to the defense of a driving under the influence charge that the person accused retain a qualified and experienced DUI criminal defense attorney.

After the prosecutor directly examines his or her expert, the defense attorney has a chance to cross-examine the witness. A skilled DUI / DWI lawyer will use this opportunity to discredit the expert and punch holes in the prosecutor’s case. Like a defense lawyer’s cross-examination of the arresting officer, grilling the prosecution’s expert in a driving while intoxicated trial is less of an examination than a chance for the defense attorney to testify.

An experienced defense lawyer will ask leading questions designed to elicit only a yes or no answer. This technique allows the defense attorney to testify to what he or she wants the jury to hear, and then forcing the prosecution’s witness to agree with that testimony.

An effective DUI / DWI defense attorney knows that scoring points with the prosecution’s expert is even better than scoring points with the defense expert. Jurors know that the defense expert has been hired by the defense to help the defense. But the prosecution’s expert is there to help convict the accused drunk driver, so persuading that witness to agree with the defense, or support something that helps the defendant’s case, is much more valuable than anything the defense expert could say.

A savvy DUI / DWI criminal defense lawyer will use cross-examination to get the expert to admit that he or she doesn’t know anything about the accused driver’s drinking patterns, level of tolerance, or how his or her body absorbs alcohol. The expert has no information about how the defendant drank the night he or she was arrested, or how much. The expert has no way of knowing whether the driver has any injuries or illnesses that would impact the performance of field sobriety tests, or could affect the sample provided during the chemical tests.

Without aggressive cross-examination by a California defense lawyer experienced in drunk driving cases, the prosecution’s expert will only offer testimony that will help convict the driver. During a skilled cross-examination, the impact of a prosecution expert’s testimony can be diminished or completely eliminated.

Blood Tests

Posted by Brianna Wilkins on May 4, 2012

Drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI in California must take a breath or blood test to determine the motorist’s blood alcohol content (BAC). Although police and prosecutors consider blood tests to be definitive evidence in drunk driving cases, these tests are open to interpretation. A skilled attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm who focuses on driving under the influence cases has the experience needed to effectively challenge blood test results.

California’s Implied Consent Law dictates that anyone who drives in the state agrees to take a chemical test if arrested on suspicion of drinking and driving. If a driver is suspected of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), a blood or urine test may be required.

If the driver refuses to submit to a chemical test, a number of serious repercussions follow, including fines, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of DUI, and DMV suspension of the person’s driver’s license. And if the driver refuses a chemical test, the courts have ruled that police have the right to take the defendant’s blood by force. Therefore, submitting to the chemical test is in the best interests of someone arrested for DUI.

When a driver opts to take a breath test, the officer must advise the person of the right to take a blood test in order to retain a sample of blood for later testing by an independent forensic toxicologist. Tests are fallible, and human error is not uncommon.

Improper blood-drawing procedures are a common error in blood-testing. When drawing a blood sample for a drunk driving case, the blood should be drawn into a glass tube that contains a white powder in the bottom; the white powder is a mixture of preservative and anticoagulant. If the level of preservative is incorrect, the blood sample can actually ferment and create additional alcohol. If the sample does not contain enough anticoagulant, the blood will clot, reflecting an artificially high blood alcohol level. Independent testing can reveal such instances. Thus, it is to the DUI defendant’s best advantage to have his or her blood sample independently tested.

The blood must also be drawn by a person certified to perform the draw. The driver’s arm should be cleaned with an alcohol-free wipe. Once drawn, the blood sample must be shaken in order to thoroughly distribute the anti coagulant and preservative. The sample should be stored in a controlled environment in order to preserve the quality of the sample. Therefore, when defending a drunk driving case it’s important to identify the “chain of custody” in order to fully understand who had access to the sample, when and how it was stored.

Even when the blood sample is properly collected and stored, the result doesn’t necessarily mean the driver is guilty of DUI / DWI. While chemical testing may be accurate to determine blood or breath alcohol content at the time of testing, it is not conclusive evidence of BAC at the time of driving. It is not illegal to be above the legal limit while in a police station. The offense is driving under the influence, not having a BAC above the legal limit at a later time. Because alcohol levels change over time, this is a critical point to understand.

Ultimately, blood tests and other chemical test results can be successfully challenged in drunk driving cases. When it comes to issues of blood-testing in a drinking and driving case, it’s important to have a California lawyer who specializes in DUI / DWI defense on your side.

What Is A Refusal?

Posted by on May 4, 2012

Drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI in California are required by law to provide a sample of their blood or breath for chemical testing for alcohol content, or a sample of blood or urine if they are suspected of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). This is known as California’s Implied Consent Law. Any driver who refuses a chemical test after a lawful driving under the influence arrest faces stiff consequences from the Department of Motor Vehicles and during a court trial.

But what constitutes refusal? Police and prosecutors consider a refusal to be anything other than absolute assent to the test. However, there are actually two types of refusals: Express, where the driver says no, and Implied, where the police say a refusal occurred but the person did not expressly refuse. An experienced California DUI / DWI lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm will evaluate each case individually to determine whether an implied refusal might be excused.

In some cases, an implied refusal may be excused. For example, if the driver chose to take a breath test, but was unable to provide a sufficient sample of breath to allow for a reading, police often record this as a refusal, assuming the person is deliberately blocking the mouthpiece or not blowing hard enough. However, the driver may have been ill or injured and was unable to provide a sufficient sample, or the breath machine may be faulty. In this situation, if a police officer does not allow a person who chose a breath test to take a blood test instead, and records it as a refusal, this refusal may be excused.

Another implied refusal that may be excused occurs when a driver refuses to take a breath test but police then draw the driver’s blood. If the individual doesn’t object to the draw – even though technically there is no permission granted either – police shouldn’t record it as a refusal. If the police officer had honored the initial refusal and not done the forced blood draw, a refusal would have existed. However, when the officer chose not to honor the refusal and took blood anyway, the refusal is lost.

Another type of implied refusal exists when a driver arrested for DUI / DWI was physically unable to either refuse or consent, or was in and out of consciousness. California courts have ruled that a driver who is semiconscious cannot be punished for a refusal that stems from a medical condition that is unrelated to alcohol use.

If an individual charged with drunk driving isn’t advised of the consequences of refusal, namely that their driver’s license will be suspended or revoked, or if the officer fails to advise the person of the Implied Consent Law, the refusal may be excused.

A police officer’s failure to advise the driver of the consequences of refusal may also serve as a valid defense at the DMV hearing to determine whether the driver’s license should be suspended.

Refusing a chemical test carries serious consequences with both the Department of Motor Vehicles and in criminal court. However, an implied refusal, where police merely assume that the driver refused a chemical test, can often be successfully challenged by a California defense attorney experienced in handling DUI / DWI cases.

Settlement Negotiations

Posted by on May 4, 2012

In California, driving under the influence of alcohol is considered a serious crime. While harsh penalties such as jail time, fines, and license suspensions are common sentences for cases involving intoxicated and impaired drivers, the law does provide for alternatives.

These alternatives have been created by the legislature to try to help decrease recidivism and to keep the streets free of drunk drivers. With the assistance of a knowledgeable DUI / DWI lawyer, a driver may get the benefit of alternative punishments that may be more suitable to the driver’s particular case.

Sentencing alternatives are not intended to be a mere slap on the wrist. There are punitive elements involved in each of the sentences, but the sentencing alternatives are created to help people keep their jobs and get treatment for alcohol problems where appropriate, as well as allowing people to do some good for society through community service. Allowing a person to contribute to society with community service is more beneficial to the greater good than keeping the offender looked up in jail or on strict home-imprisonment.

California has been forging ahead in the use of the ignition interlock devices. Recent DUI legislation that became effective on September 20, 2005, makes it mandatory for a repeat offender to have the ignition interlock device installed in his or her car as part of the court’s sentence. Experienced California criminal defense attorneys are informed about ongoing developments in drunk driving law.

The ignition interlock device is linked to the car’s ignition. In order for a driver to start the vehicle, the driver must blow into the breathalyzer. If the breathalyzer registers acceptable breath alcohol content (BAC) levels, then the engine will start. If there are traces of alcohol, the car will not start.

This device is used to eliminate the problem of repeat offenders. A California attorney experienced at defending driving while intoxicated cases will be able to provide more information on the viability of this device as an alternative sentence.

Of primary importance to people arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in California is that ignition interlock devices are a great bargaining chip for DUI / DWI lawyers. A qualified California DUI criminal defense lawyer will be able to use an ignition interlock device as a tool for negotiating a plea bargain with negotiated consequences when the facts allow for it.

The ignition interlock device is often a great way to allow repeat offenders to keep their jobs and to attend alcohol education classes. A DUI / DWI lawyer will negotiate with the prosecutor to allow the offender person to use the device in order to maintain a somewhat normal lifestyle, while avoiding the possibility of repeat offenses.

Judges have the discretion to order the installation of the ignition interlock device in the car of any drunk driving offender whether they are repeat offenders or first-time offenders. This means that any time a judge deems it appropriate, they may order the mandatory installation of the ignition interlock device. A California criminal defense attorney will make sure that the ignition interlock device is ordered when appropriate.

Bail in Domestic Violence cases

Posted by on May 4, 2012

Bail in Domestic Violence cases

California domestic violence cases are different from other crimes when it comes to bail. With respect to most domestic abuse charges, the law forbids the defendant from being released on his or her own recognizance (commonly called OR) without first having a court hearing. At that bail hearing, the judge decides if OR release is appropriate. This is different from other classes of crimes where OR release is possible prior to a court appearance. Hiring an experienced criminal defense lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm is the first step towards freedom, as he or she will fight to get the client’s bail reduced or, if appropriate, to get a speedy bail hearing to hopefully get it eliminated entirely.

Bail is money that the court requires the defendant to pay in order to assure his or her court appearances. The amount of bail varies depending on the crime involved. A bail schedule sets forth the amount for bail for each type of crime. Of course, the judge has the authority to deviate from the schedule to make bail either higher or lower.

If there is a bail hearing, the judge will consider the defendant’s prior criminal history, his or her flight risk and the facts of the pending case. When the judge is making decisions about bail, he or she will presume that the accused is guilty and make a decision keeping that in mind. With that being the case, it would be quite foolish for anyone to try and take on a bail hearing without first hiring the best lawyer he or she can afford.

If the defendant is denied an OR release (which is typical when a defendant faces an intimate partner abuse charge) and must post bail, he or she may be released through two different methods: posting cash bail or posting a bail bond. To be released on cash bail, the defendant must post certified funds (or cash) in the full amount of the bail with either the arresting agency or with the Clerk of the Court. If the accused attends every court appearance, the cash will be returned within 60-90 days after the case is resolved. However, if the defendant fails to appear, the cash bond is forfeited to the court.

A bail bondsman is typically the best alternative to obtain pre-trial release, since many people do not have the financial resources to post cash bail. A bail bond is a contract with a bail agent where the agent agrees to post a bond for the full bail amount. The bondsman will generally require a “premium” which is his or her fee, and is set by law at 10% of the amount of the bond. The bondsman may also require “collateral” (which is usually a car, house or something else of great value) in order to secure the bond. That means that if the defendant doesn’t repay the bond, the bondman has the legal right to keep or sell the defendant’s collateral. The bondsman’s premium is non-refundable and is paid to the bond company for taking the risk that the defendant may not appear in court. Once the case is over, the bond is exonerated, and the collateral is then released. A bail bond is good for one year. If the court case goes beyond one year, an additional premium may be required to keep the bond in force.

A domestic violence arrest in California is no joke. An accusation can be devastating, emotionally and financially, and a conviction carries severe penalties. To best avoid these consequences, it is imperative that an accused hires a skilled attorney immediately after being arrested so that the attorney can help the accused navigate through the criminal court system right from the start. In order to secure the best representation from a firm who has successfully defended countless domestic abuse cases, contact the attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm for a free consultation.

Alcohol Education Programs in Calaveras County, California

Posted by Darren Kavinoky on May 4, 2012

Alcohol Education Programs in Calaveras County, California

In California, there are several levels of Alcohol Education Programs that are offered. In order to enroll in one of the programs, one must be referred, either by the court or the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

BEWARE: Completing an alcohol program may not satisfy the DMV. That is just one reason why it is critical that you consult with a California criminal defense lawyer that concentrates on DUI defense.

Driving Under the Influence programs in Calaveras County, California:

Calaveras County Behavioral Health Services Department
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
891 Mountain Ranch Road,
Dept. 61,
San Andreas, California 95249
Phone: 209-754-6555; Fax: 209-754-6559

» Return to Driving Under the Influence program in California, directory of service providers

Note: This list is provided for convenience and informational purposes only. We do not recommend or endorse any specific Alcohol or Drug Risk Reduction Program.

Alcohol Education Programs in Mariposa County, California

Posted by on May 4, 2012

Alcohol Education Programs in Mariposa County, California

BEWARE: Completing an alcohol program may not satisfy the DMV. That is just one reason why it is critical that you consult with a California criminal defense lawyer that concentrates on DUI defense.

Driving Under the Influence programs in Mariposa County, California:

Mariposa County DDP
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
5037 Stroming Road,
Mariposa, California 95338
Phone: 209-966-2000; Fax: 209-966-8251

» Return to Driving Under the Influence program in California, directory of service providers

Note: This list is provided for convenience and informational purposes only. We do not recommend or endorse any specific Alcohol or Drug Risk Reduction Program.