Archive for the ‘DUI Law’ Category

A Break For DUI Drivers?

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Second and third time DUI drivers in California have for several years been subjected to long term license suspension as a result of their convictions.  Effective this year the rules for obtaining restricted licenses for second and third time California DUI drivers are changing, and providing quite a break.

Now, second time DUI, alcohol only, offenders will be able to apply for a restricted license after ninety days into their otherwise two year license suspension.  Previously, they could only apply after twelve months into their two year suspension.  Third time DUI, alcohol only, offenders will now be able to apply for a restricted license after six months into their three year license suspension.  Previously, they could only apply for a restricted license after twelve months into their three year suspension.

The legislative history surrounding these changes state that their purpose is to encourage drunk drivers to obtain ignition interlock devices by permitting them to obtain restricted licenses sooner if they do.

Should you or a loved one have the misfortune of a DUI arrest and/or have questions concerning California DUI laws contact San Jose DUI lawyer Bernard P. Bray.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s Wife a Scoff law?

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

Celebrity and entertainment website TMZ.com recently posted pictures depicting California’s First Lady Maria Shriver twice breaking California’s law against using a hand held cell phone while driving.

Marie Shriver’s husband Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed off in 2008 on the law that requires all California drivers to use hands free mobile phones while driving.

The law is one that many, not just Governor Schwarzenegger’s wife, have more honored in the breach than in the observance.  Is a law that is more often broken than observed really a good law at all?  California drivers can do just about anything else possible, and legally, while driving.

There does not appear to be a ground swell for support for changing the law prohibiting cell phone use while driving.  Governor Schwarzenegger promised swift action in response to his wife’s law violations, and the California First lady has apologized.

If you or someone you know has questions regarding criminal justice issues please contact San Jose DUI Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.

Will the Sun Shine Again in San Jose?

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

On Tuesday night October 20, 2009, the San Jose City Council will address a recommendation by the Sunshine Reform Task Force, to release more police records, and increase reporting of police statistics.

Certainly not many would disagree that openness builds trust.  Recent San Jose controversies (all discussed previously in this blog) stemming from San Jose City Hall resistance to information sharing in the Daniel Pham shooting by San Jose Police case, last year’s DUI alleged injury accident case involving former San Jose police officer Sandra Woodall, and last summer’s scandal concerning alleged bad faith public drunkenness arrests in downtown San Jose, to mention but a few, all support the San Jose City Council supporting the Sunshine Reform Task Force recommendations.

Will the sun shine again in San Jose?

If you or someone you know has questions regarding criminal justice issues please contact the San Jose DUI Lawyers at the Law Offices of Bernard P. Bray.

Terminated SJPD Officers: Political Sacrificial Lambs or Cover Up Failures?

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

In March of 2008 District Attorney Investigator/former San Jose Police Officer Sandra Woodall was involved in a traffic collision that resulted in an injury. Highly regarded, and well liked, responding San Jose Police Officers Sergeant Will Manion and Officer Patrick D’Arrigo are reported to have failed to conduct a DUI investigation notwithstanding evidence of possible DUI, and to have filed police reports indicating that there was no evidence of drinking impaired driving involved with the accident.

A responding emergency medical technician latter claimed that Woodall appeared disoriented, smelled of alcohol, and admitted to drinking. The mother of the young woman injured in the accident asked the officers at the hospital to test Woodall for alcohol, and later filed a complaint when tests were not performed. Woodall was ultimately charged with DUI, and pleaded guilty to same.

Sergeant Manion and Officer D’Arrigo were both terminated from the San Jose Police Department by Chief Rob Davis who has recently been through a tumultuous run politically with widespread community discussion about discriminatory arrests, police pension costs, police substation cost overruns, sunshine law issues relating to the public’s access to police records, POA issues, to name but a few.

Was Woodall afforded special treatment because of her connection with Law Enforcement? Were the Sergeant and Officer treated overly harshly, after all a grand jury concluded that the two were not guilty of any criminal conduct? Should emergency medical technicians and citizens be second guessing more qualified police officers when it comes to crime investigation?

The most important issue of all, as far as this writer is concerned, is whether the terminated officers filed false reports with a view toward covering up a possible crime to protect a fellow law enforcement officer. Police reports are relied on by citizens, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, attorneys, insurance companies, and the laundry list goes on and on. Police reports are afforded deference to an extent that there are looked upon in many quarters as the gospel truth. The need for unqualified fidelity and good faith in the preparation of police reports is an unquestioned absolute. Police officer false reporting is a felony offense in the state of California pursuant to California Penal Code section 118.1. However, as above noted, a grand jury exonerated the Officers of any criminal conduct.

While this matter involved city employee personnel issues, the City of San Jose needs to fully address the above issues. Were the Sergeant and Officer made to be political scapegoats to revive a Police Chief’s sagging political reputation, or was there really a double standard, and bad faith exercise of discretion on the Officer’s part, in the investigation and follow up to the March 2008 traffic accident with a view toward covering up a possible crime to protect a fellow law enforcement officer?

If you have questions regarding criminal justice issues contact San Jose Criminal Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.

Should I Take the Test, and If So, Which One?

Monday, September 28th, 2009

California drivers faced with a request form a police officer to summit to an alcohol chemical test must submit to a test, or be faced with the almost always certainty of a mandatory one year license suspension.   While there are various defenses that may be available for a refusal to summit to the mandatory testing requirement, this writer always recommends taking the test, thereby avoiding the potential for long term license suspension.

What test?

There are usually two tests available.  The standard breath test consists of a suspect blowing into a testing device.  Alternatively, one may submit to a blood test which consists of a simple blood draw.

Hands down, this writer recommends the breath test.  Breath testing requires conversion of a breath sample to derive a blood alcohol percentage.  The conversion factor is known as a partition ratio, and issues surrounding such ratios give rise to successful attacks on the reliability of breath test results.  Partition ratios vary widely in the general population and within individuals.  Moreover, patrition ratios in the general population are higher than the standard used in breath test machines, giving suspects taking such tests a potential benefit.

There are other reasons breath test machines lend themselves to an attack on the reliability of their results.  Machines often do not function properly.  Breath testing machines have a margin of error of 0.02%.  Further, breath test results in some machines are truncated.  The third decimal in the result is not included.  Thus, a test result of .099% will read out .09%, giving a suspect an added benefit.  In some situations a suspect may be able to avoid providing enough deep breath to register all of the alcohol present in his system.  Finally, the breath test machine scale in some machines is set .003% below the start line giving the suspect a further added benefit.

Should you or a loved one have the misfortune of a DUI arrest and/or be faced with other issues concerning your driving privilege contact San Jose DUI Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.