There is an abundance of circumstances that can lead to an arrest for a California DUI. Maybe you and your date shared a bottle of wine at dinner and in your excitement to get back to your house a police officer pulled you over for speeding and detected the smell of alcohol on your breath. Or maybe you had one too many at a friend’s wedding and got stopped by a police officer when you failed to come to a complete stop at an intersection. Or perhaps you hit a sobriety check point on the way from the beach over the holidays. The point is that a drunk driving arrest can happen to almost anyone at any time and if this happens it is a good idea to speak with a California DUI lawyer immediately.

But just because you were stopped in your car does not automatically mean that the stop was legal and that the evidence of alcohol in your blood or on your breaths admissible as evidence against you in a court of law. In the United States, police need specific legal reasons for pulling your car over and conducting a DUI investigation. If the police did not follow the law in stopping your car and during the ensuing driving under the influence investigation, then a qualified and experienced criminal defense lawyer should be able to get the evidence gathered against you during that stop and investigation suppressed. If your one of your California DUI lawyer can convince the judge to suppress the evidence, the prosecution will not be able to use the evidence against you. Without use of such evidence, the case is likely to be dismissed.

A lawful DUI investigation can be triggered by one of three events: Police observation of a law violation, police observation of a driving pattern so suggestive of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs so as to provide a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place, or a lawful roadblock or checkpoint. If none of these conditions are present, any evidence gathered during the traffic stop likely will be suppressed.

Did you know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not recognize speeding as a drunk-driving pattern? Therefore, if a police officer offers the fact that you were speeding as his reason for instigating a drunk-driving investigation, skilled and experience California criminal defense lawyers may be able to convince the judge to suppress the evidence gathered in that investigation.

Today in California, the courts have ruled that police officers are allowed to stop a car based simply on a tip from an anonymous caller who believes that that the driver of the car is somehow under the influence. However, this does not mean the police do not need to conduct themselves within the law. If they carry out an investigation that is not warranted based on what they themselves observe, a California DUI attorney with experience and know how may convince a judge that the officer went beyond what the law allows and get the evidence suppressed.

A recent trend in the state’s efforts to curb drunk driving is the sobriety roadblock or checkpoint. While these are legal methods of stopping a driver, there are strict rules that the police must conform to when operating a drunk-driving roadblock or checkpoint. If any of these rules are violated, a good criminal defense attorney may be able to have the evidence obtained at the roadblock or checkpoint suppressed.

Generally a person facing drunk driving charges in California faces two different charges, one charge is for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs and the second is for driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 percent or higher. This second charge is known as a per se violation. The per se violation means that if your blood alcohol content was .08 percent or higher, and the traffic stop and DUI investigation were legal, then the charge will be considered per se (by operation of the law) that you were too drunk to drive.

When one fights a drunk driving defense case, the prosecutor does not have a simple job in getting a conviction. There are several hurdles a prosecutor must get over before a jury can find beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fact drunk while you were driving. It is important to remember concerning the .08 percent per se law that the case is not about whether at some point in the evening your blood alcohol level was .08 percent or higher, but rather whether your blood alcohol level was .08 percent or higher when you were driving.

Oftentimes a chemical test will be taken sometime after you were driving, many times an hour or more later. A skilled and knowledgeable California DUI lawyer or defense attorney can cast doubt upon a case by showing a jury that there is reasonable doubt whether a driver’s blood alcohol level was in fact above the legal limit during the time the person was actually driving.

DUI prosecutions are generally driven by four different categories of evidence: Driving pattern, physical signs and symptoms, field sobriety test performance, and chemical test results. If there is an investigative failure in any one of these areas, the driving under the influence prosecution will be in serious trouble. The best way to fight a drunk-driving case is to consult with an experienced DUI attorney as soon as possible.

California DUI criminal defense lawyer Darren T. Kavinoky of The Kavinoky Law Firm has successfully defended hundreds of drunk driving defense cases by creating reasonable doubt in one or more of these critical areas of the prosecution. Contact Darren 24 hours a day, seven days a week for a free consultation..

One is considered to be innocent until proven guilty in a criminal proceeding such as a drunk driving case. In criminal courts the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The standard of requiring a prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt applies in driving under the influence cases and in all criminal cases in California. Often it is difficult for the state to achieve this very high standard when faced by an able DUI attorney who has what it takes to make it difficult for the prosecutor to prove each and every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

To the casual observer the elements that make up a drunk driving offense may seem straightforward, but there are several nuances that an experienced DUI attorney understands. This understanding allows the attorney to poke holes in any one of the elements. If your attorney can create reasonable doubt as to just one of the elements, then a jury will have to find that you are not guilty of the charges.

It is important to understand that you must be under the influence at the time of driving. It must also be understood that there are two separate charges that apply to DUI cases. Those are Vehicle Code 23152(a) Sections which says it is a misdemeanor to drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and Vehicle Code 23152(b) Sections which say it is a misdemeanor to drive with .08 percent or more of alcohol in your blood. While sometimes a person will be charged under (a) and not (b), a person charged with (b) will always be charged with (a) as well.

When a person is being charged under Vehicle Code Section 23512(b), the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood alcohol level of the motorist was .08 percent or higher at the time the person was driving. If the police officer conducts a chemical test an hour after a person was pulled over, there is a chance that a good DUI attorney will be able to raise doubt as to whether the blood alcohol level was really .08 percent at the time of driving.

The standard of reasonable doubt in a driving while intoxicated case is the same high standard applied in a murder case. There is a responsibility upon a jury to take this standard seriously in order to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole. It is a defense attorney of quality who can convey this responsibility to the jury members in order to have them apply the high standard of proof to a drunk-driving case. The experienced attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm are well-known for their skill and integrity. Call for a free consultation.

The point of the field sobriety test is to test for a person’s physical and mental impairment. This is known as a Divided Attention Test. Essentially, the test is set up to test whether one is mentally capable of following the directions that are given by the police officer and whether the individual is capable of physically carrying out those instructions.

For example, if the officer instructs the motorist to take ten steps forward and then do a 180-degree turn to the right, the officer is not simply testing whether a person can walk and turn without tripping, but whether the person also has the presence of mind to walk exactly ten steps, and whether that person turns to the right as they were told. A person who forgets the directions given by the officer may be considered mentally impaired by the officer on the basis that they can’t follow simple directions.

The prosecution will try to make any failure to listen to directions or any failure to carry out the directions without stumbling, tripping, or falling as signs that a person was under the influence. A skilled DUI / DWI defense attorney will be able to make sense of those failures and paint them as normal actions having nothing to do with being intoxicated. Perhaps a person has poor hearing or inherently bad balance which can account for any problems during a field sobriety test.

Once again, in California there is the per se law that says that anyone with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater is considered, by law, too drunk to drive, and there is the second law which states that it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol. It is in this case that the prosecution will seek to use the field sobriety test as circumstantial evidence of a person’s intoxication.

One should bear in mind that although police use the field sobriety tests to gather evidence against a motorist suspected of drunk driving, in California, the field sobriety tests are optional even though most police officers won’t tell that to a suspect.

While the field sobriety test is used to determine both the motorist’s physical and mental impairment, it should be remembered that experts on both sides of the law agree that mental impairment will always precede physical impairment. Physical impairments are not necessarily rooted in mental impairments. Fragile bones or an old soccer injury can cause just as much, if not more, physical impairment than alcohol.

Other factors that may result in physical impairment can be drowsiness, nervousness, or perhaps the threat of going to jail for the night. It is the job of a qualified DUI / DWI Defense lawyer to do a thorough investigation into clients’ histories to determine if any of the above factors may have been the cause of physical impairment instead of alcohol.

Furthermore, a person with a high tolerance for alcohol, though they might be mentally impaired, may be able to disguise that impairment by carrying out the physical part of the field sobriety tests without any problems. Disguising mental symptoms of impairment is not as simple, or even possible.

In performing field sobriety tests for DUI / DWI cases, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has “validated” three tests in particular. These tests are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk-and-Turn Test, and the One-Leg-Stand Test. These tests have standard instructions for the motorist to follow and they have standard scoring for the police officer to use in the evaluation of the motorist’s performance.

There are other non-standardized tests that may also be used by the police. They are, the finger-to-nose test, reciting the alphabet, the finger tap test, the hand pat test, and the Rhomberg balance test, among other things a police officer may use to determine a motorist’s impairment.

At the end of the day, no matter how a driver being prosecuted for a DUI / DWI feels he or she performed on a field sobriety test, a drunk-driving defense attorney with years of experience can use the results of the tests to demonstrate that any physical impairment came from sources other than alcohol.

Police investigating a DUI / DWI in California often have the driver take the Finger-to-Nose Test or another field sobriety test before making an arrest. Unfortunately, field sobriety tests shouldn’t be called tests at all, because they’re designed to be failed. They’re used only to establish probable cause to make an arrest and generate ammunition for a drunk driving court prosecution. The good news is that the results of field sobriety tests can be successfully challenged by a skilled attorney. An experienced DUI / DWI defense lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm can aggressively challenge the Finger-to-Nose Test and other drunk driving evidence to create reasonable doubt of the driver’s guilt.

The Finger-to-Nose Test is so unreliable an indicator of alcohol impairment that it’s not even standardized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Because the NHTSA does not endorse the Finger-to-Nose Test as a valid gauge of alcohol impairment, it holds less weight in court than a standardized test.

Police officers conduct the Finger-to-Nose Test by instructing the driver to touch his or her index finger to the nose with eyes closed and head tilted back. The driver is told to continue to touch the left or right index finger to the nose at random. While administering the test, the officer is watching for the following signs that the driver is intoxicated: An inability to follow instructions; poor depth perception; swaying, muscle tightening or tremors; or an inability to touch the finger directly to the tip of the nose. The officer also will make a note of any statements made by the driver during the test.

Clearly, drivers don’t take the Finger-to-Nose Test under the best of circumstances; it is usually given by the side of a busy freeway or street as cars whiz past. The driver is typically nervous after being ordered from his or her car. And the Finger-to-Nose Test has no objective scoring system – the outcome of this “test” is based entirely on the officer’s opinion. Some officers don’t even conduct the test properly.

There are many conditions unrelated to alcohol use that could cause a driver to perform poorly on the Finger-to-Nose Test. Injury, illness, motor-skill difficulties, or just plain nervousness could cause a driver to “fail” the test. However, police rarely take these issues into consideration when conducting the Finger-to-Nose exercise or other field sobriety tests.

In fact, police often fail to tell drivers that the Finger-to-Nose Test and other field sobriety tests are completely optional. Unlike chemical tests given after a motorist is arrested for drunk driving, field sobriety tests are totally voluntary. If given an option, obviously drivers arrested for DUI / DWI would decline to create evidence to be used against them in court, but police are usually less than forthright about the test being voluntary.

An attorney with experience defending driving under the influence cases will challenge the officer’s interpretation of the Finger-to-Nose Test and demonstrate that the results indicate the driver wasn’t impaired. A California defense lawyer skilled in fighting drunk driving cases can mount an aggressive defense and contest the results of any field sobriety test.

California’s Implied Consent Law dictates that any driver who is lawfully arrested for DUI / DWI must take a chemical test in order to determine their blood alcohol content (BAC).

If the driver refuses to submit to a chemical test of the blood, breath or urine, police can take a blood sample by force – either by holding the driver down, or by threatening to do so. During a forced blood draw, trained medical personnel draw blood to be analyzed for a drunk driving court case.

The United States Supreme Court allowed forced blood draws in drunk driving cases in the landmark 1966 case of Schmerber v. California. The Court ruled that police can take a person’s blood without a warrant for the purpose of chemical testing to determine intoxication, provided that the taking of the sample is done in a medically approved manner, after a lawful arrest, and based upon the reasonable belief that the person is intoxicated. If these three requirements are met, a forced blood draw does not violate the driver’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court ruled that it is unreasonable to require a warrant to draw someone’s blood in a DUI / DWI case because of the temporary nature of alcohol in the blood. However, many opponents believe that forced blood draws are an invasion of privacy and a violation of the right against self-incrimination.

In California, if police take the driver’s blood by force it is recorded as a chemical test refusal. Refusals carry numerous consequences, including fines, jail time, and suspension of driving privileges. Therefore, a forced blood draw may result in both a conviction for DUI and added penalties. Sometimes police say that a DUI suspect refused even when he or she did not. These types of errors sometimes stem from issues that include misunderstandings resulting from language barriers, overreacting police officers, or drivers who fear needles.

An experienced defense attorney may submit a motion to the court to suppress the results of a forced blood draw from the evidence in a drunk driving trial. A suppression motion is a request typically made before the start of trial, where the court is asked to exclude evidence because it was not gathered in a constitutionally valid way.

If this protocol laid out by the Supreme Court for forced blood draws isn’t followed, the DUI defendant may validly claim a violation of his or her Fourth Amendment right. Suppressed evidence cannot be considered by the judge or heard by the jury. According the legal principle of “fruit of the poisonous tree,” any evidence gained as a result of the unconstitutional evidence must also be suppressed.

Suppressing forced blood draws in California drunk driving cases is a serious and necessary weapon in the fight for constitutional rights, and one of the few safeguards the law offers is where a person’s rights have been violated. The knowledgeable DUI / DWI defense attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm will review the procedures used in a forced blood draw to determine whether a driver’s rights have been violated. If the proper protocol was not followed, the defense lawyer will argue that the evidence should be suppressed.

The Hand-pat Test is a field sobriety test used by law enforcement investigating suspected DUI / DWI drivers in California. Unfortunately, police don’t use the test to help them decide whether to make a drunk driving arrest, because that decision is made before the test even begins. Field sobriety tests such as the Hand-pat Test are merely tools used to create probable cause for an arrest and generate evidence for a DUI court case. However, field sobriety tests can be successfully challenged by a skilled attorney. An experienced DUI / DWI defense attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm will attack field sobriety test results as part of an aggressive defense strategy.

When taking the Hand-pat Test, the driver is instructed to extend one hand palm up and place the other hand on top, facing palm down. The driver is then told to pat the bottom hand with the top hand, while alternating the top hand’s palm position – facing up or facing down between pats – and count out loud with each pat.

As the test progresses, the officer is watching for signs that the driver is intoxicated, including starting the test too soon, an inability to follow instructions, an inability to count as directed, an inability to pat the hands as directed, and ending the test before being told to do so.

However, the Hand-pat Test shouldn’t be called a test at all, because the driver is set up to fail. The Hand-pat Test is so subjective that it is not even standardized by the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHSTA). The NHSTA doesn’t regard the Hand-pat Test as an accurate indicator of alcohol impairment, because it has no objective scoring system and relies solely on the officer’s opinion of whether the driver passed or failed.

A lawyer skilled in defending drunk driving cases will argue that a driver could have “failed” the Hand-pat Test for reasons that had nothing to do with alcohol intoxication, such as injury, illness, or a nervous-system disorder. The attorney can challenge the officer’s test instructions, or even argue that it wasn’t administered properly.

Even nervousness can cause a motorist to perform poorly on the Hand-pat Test. The test isn’t given under the best of conditions – the driver usually takes the test next to a busy freeway or roadway, with cars speeding past and the police cruiser’s lights flashing red and blue. Anyone would get rattled under those kinds of conditions.

Contrary to popular opinion, “failing” the Hand-pat Test or another field sobriety test doesn’t equal a slam-dunk conviction. Field sobriety test results can be interpreted in a number of ways. A skilled California DUI / DWI criminal defense attorney can challenge the results of a field sobriety test and craft a strategy to defend drunk driving charges.