Category: Driving Under the Influence

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

Superior Court Of California, County of Tulare

Superior Court Of California, County of Tulare

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.

Tulare County Superior Court
425 East Kern, Tulare, CA 93274

Visalia Courthouse
County Civic Center
221 Mooney Blvd., Visalia, CA 93291

Porterville Courthouse
87 East Morton, Porterville, CA 93257

Dinuba Courthouse
640 S. Alta Avenue, Dinuba, CA 93618

» Tulare 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

Motion for Blood/Urine Sample to be Split

Motion for Blood/Urine Sample to be Split

The experienced California DUI lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm perform a great deal of work before a drunk driving defense case ever goes to trial. A skilled California DUI lawyer typically makes one or more pretrial motions at the driver’s arraignment or at a later date. One motion common in a driving while intoxicated case is a request to have a pretrial motion for a blood or urine sample split so that it can be tested by an independent forensic expert.

Individuals arrested for drunk driving or driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) must be told of their right to have a blood or urine sample preserved for independent testing. This is especially important when a driver submits to a breath test to determine blood alcohol content (BAC), because when a breath test is taken, there is no independent sample retained for later retesting.

A chemical test is a significant piece of evidence used against the defendant. The prosecution will attempt to use a chemical test result of .08 percent BAC or greater – the legal limit for driving in all 50 states – to prove a defendant is guilty of driving while intoxicated. However, many chemical tests are administered hours after the driver was last behind the wheel. Remember, it’s not illegal to have a BAC of .08 percent at the police station, only while driving a vehicle. An independent defense expert may be able to establish that the driver’s BAC at the time of driving was below the legal limit.

When the split is obtained, it will be sent to a private, independent forensic lab for testing. Law-enforcement agencies are required to collect a sufficient amount in order to allow future tests. Testing will analyze not only the blood alcohol content of the sample, but will also determine whether proper testing protocol was followed.

Police must follow strict guidelines when conducting chemical tests. Blood samples should be drawn using sterile, dry hypodermic needles and syringes, or using clean, dry vacuum type containers with sterile needles. No alcohol can be used to clean the skin or the equipment used in the collection. The blood must be mixed with a precise mixture of anticoagulant and preservative. If the levels of the anticoagulant and preservative are not correct, the test results can be skewed. For example, if the blood sample becomes fermented, it will produce falsely high BAC readings.

In some cases during a DUI investigation, the driver’s blood or urine sample is lost or destroyed. While the prosecution has no legal duty to collect evidence that might be beneficial to the defense, they do have an obligation to preserve this possibly exculpatory evidence – evidence that may point to the defendant’s innocence. If the prosecution neglected to preserve such evidence, a savvy California DUI lawyer will ask the court to issue sanctions that may result in suppression of the evidence or the dismissal of the case.

If the prosecution doesn’t comply with a court order to split a blood or urine sample for independent analysis, the defense can ask for sanctions against the prosecutor, and the evidence the prosecutor would have used to convict the defendant may be excluded. If police have failed to preserve a sample, then this will be the basis not only for exclusion, but possible dismissal of the charges.

However, in order for sanctions to be levied, the defense must prove that the prosecutor or police acted in bad faith. If bad faith cannot be established, then the defendant is entitled to relief only on a showing that the evidence was material and exculpatory.

Drivers accused of DUI / DWI often believe that a chemical test result that places them over the legal limit for driving means an automatic conviction, but that’s not necessarily true. A California DUI Lawyer who focuses on driving under the influence cases will file a motion to have any sample split and sent to an independent laboratory to determine whether the driver’s BAC result can be challenged.

Field Sobriety Tests

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.

Sobriety Checkpoints

Police in California sometimes use sobriety checkpoints – temporary roadblocks on public streets or roadways designed to snare drunk drivers. Over the years, courts have established strict protocol to govern the operation of sobriety checkpoints – guidelines that police don’t always follow. The experienced DUI / DWI defense lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm are well-versed in the requirements of sobriety checkpoints and can determine whether a drunk driving arrest made at a Sobriety Checkpoint was valid.

Many of the requirements governing sobriety checkpoints were created by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Michigan Department of State Police vs. Sitz. The Court’s ruling attempts to balance the rights of drivers against the interests of society in keeping impaired drivers off the road.

Police must select vehicles using a neutral mathematical formula, and the checkpoints must be maintained safely for both police and motorists, have high visibility, and minimize the average time each motorist is detained.

Each driver should be stopped only long enough for an officer to ask a few brief questions and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver shows no signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive away without delay. If the officer does spot signs of intoxication, the driver can be sent to a separate area for a field sobriety test. At that point, further investigation must be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.

The sobriety roadblock should be part of an ongoing safe-driving program, and must conform to an established departmental policy. A supervising judge and a representative of the district attorney’s office should participate in the planning. The checkpoint’s supervising officers must be well-versed in the safety and civil rights issues surrounding such an operation. The roadblock should be announced to the public in advance through the media.

The Supreme Court deemed that the main purpose of a sobriety checkpoint is not to discover evidence, crimes or to arrest drunk drivers, but to promote public safety by deterring drunk drivers from endangering the public. Thus, a sobriety checkpoint roadblock serves a regulatory purpose and is not considered a criminal investigation roadblock, and no warrant is required.

The Supreme Court has held that stopping a vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.”

The key question when considering a Fourth Amendment seizure is reasonableness. The courts have ruled that not all roadblocks violate a motorist’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures. In order to determine whether there has been a Fourth Amendment violation, courts apply a balancing test which weighs the government’s interests against the intrusiveness of the detention on the individual.

An experienced California DUI / DWI lawyer will evaluate every aspect of the checkpoint to determine whether it meets the guidelines established by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the checkpoint was not operated according to that protocol, a skilled attorney such as those at The Kavinoky Law Firm will argue that any evidence gathered during the stop was improperly obtained, and should be suppressed.

Alcoholics Anonymous Meetings

Drivers convicted of DUI / DWI face serious consequences, including fines, jail, and license suspensions. However, courts have begun to acknowledge that it is useless to punish drunk drivers without addressing underlying problems with alcohol, and sentencing alternatives have become available. An experienced California DUI / DWI attorney from the Kavinoky Law Firm can determine whether a particular case meets the requirements for alternative sentencing.

These alternatives are offered with the goal of helping, not punishing, the DUI driver. One such alternative is mandatory attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous, or AA meetings.

Attendance at AA meetings is usually required as a condition of probation. The court determines how many meetings a driver must attend during a certain period of time, and the meetings are recorded on a “court card” that must be signed by the meeting secretary. If the driver fails to attend the prescribed number of meetings, the terms of probation are violated, and the driver likely will go to jail.

AA meetings take place in nearly every community during weekdays, evenings, and on weekends. To locate a meeting, look up the “AA Central Office” in any phone directory, or log on to www.aa.org. There is no cost to attend meetings, and DUI offenders likely will meet other individuals who understand and relate to the problems they are experiencing.

Alcoholics Anonymous describes itself as a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

To help individuals discover whether they have a problem with alcohol, AA has produced the following questionnaire. Anyone who answers yes to four or more questions may have a problem with alcohol.

  1. Have you ever decided to stop drinking for a week or so, but only lasted for a couple of days?
  2. Do you wish people would mind their own business about your drinking– stop telling you what to do?
  3. Have you ever switched from one kind of drink to another in the hope that this would keep you from getting drunk?
  4. Have you had to have an eye-opener upon awakening during the past year?
  5. Do you envy people who can drink without getting into trouble?
  6. Have you had problems connected with drinking during the past year?
  7. Has your drinking caused trouble at home?
  8. Do you ever try to get “extra” drinks at a party because you do not get enough?
  9. Do you tell yourself you can stop drinking any time you want to, even though you keep getting drunk when you don’t mean to?
  10. Have you missed days of work or school because of drinking?
  11. Do you have “blackouts”?
  12. Have you ever felt that your life would be better if you did not drink?

An estimated 13 million Americans suffer from substance abuse problems, but help is available to those who seek it. Alcoholics Anonymous has helped more than 2 million problem drinkers live sober lives.

How Do I Find an Experienced Los Angeles DUI Attorney?

Experienced Los Angeles DUI Attorneys

It is important to hire a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer when faced with a Los Angeles criminal charge. Not all criminal lawyers are the same. You want to make sure that you are given all the resources possible to resolve your criminal case with minimal repercussions. At the Kavinoky Law Firm, you not only get the knowledge and experience to win, you get an entire team working around the clock on your behalf.  Our main objective is to remove all the burdens off your shoulders. Let us handle the case, so you can sleep well at night.
There are many aspects and procedures that can be challenged to help get you off your criminal charge. We spare no expense to make sure we have uncovered all avenues of your Los Angeles criminal case.  We understand the impact of a criminal charge on your life and livelihood.

We focus on a plethora of Los Angeles criminal charges including:
Assault
Appeals
Battery
Bench Warrants
Crimes Against Children
Domestic Violence
DUI
DUI Drugs
Drug Crimes
Drug Possession
Embezzlement
Expungement
Federal Cases
Fraud
Gang Offense
Grand Theft
Investigatory
Manslaughter
Murder
Robbery
Sex Crimes
Violent Crimes
Weapons Crimes
White Collar Crimes

Big-Firm Resources, Small-Firm Feel

• The Kavinoky Law Firm has more than a dozen lawyers and a support staff of 25.

• We employ a team approach: Your defense strategy will be engineered by founding lawyer Darren Kavinoky, Senior Supervising Attorney Joel Koury, Northern California Managing Attorney Michael Meehan, and their handpicked team. The Kavinoky Law Firm has more than a century of combined legal experience, and over 500 completed jury trials.

• We are one of the largest law firms in California that concentrates on defending cases involving alcohol and drugs. This translates into greater resources for your defense.

• We employ a specialized Intranet Toolkit to ensure all of our attorneys effectively collaborate, share information, and work in concert.

• All of our attorneys use Blackberries or Droids. This means that you’ll receive an immediate response to your emails and phone calls and outstanding customer service.

• We have a network of attorneys throughout the United States for cases that involve issues that cross state lines, such as foreign prior convictions, or those involving out-of-state driver’s licenses that could be impacted by an action in California.

• We conduct frequent comprehensive case-evaluation roundtables, where a “mastermind” group of lawyers each review your case, and come up with the best approach that is designed to achieve the best possible result in your criminal case.

• We have an-house appellate department to address writs and appeals. We are willing and equipped to fight (and have successfully fought), significant legal issues all the way to the Supreme Court.

• We employ a team approach, which translates into more resources to come up with the winning strategy in your case.

Our Los Angeles Offices:
Encino
Los Angeles

 

We proudly cover these areas of Greater Los Angeles:
Acton, Agoura, Agoura Hills , Alhambra, Antelope Valley, Arcadia, Artesia, Avalon, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Bradbury, Brentwood, Burbank, Calabasas, Camarillo, Carson, Claremont, Commerce, Canoga Park, Century City, Chatsworth, Commerce, Compton, Covina, Cudahy, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, East Los Angeles, El Monte, El Segundo, Encino, Gardena, Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Industry, Irwindale, La Canada-Flintridge, Lake Balboa, Lakewood, La Mirada, Lancaster, La Puente, La Verne, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles , Lynwood, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Maywood, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Newhall, North Hollywood, Northridge, Norwalk, Oxnard, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Quartz Hill, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach , Reseda, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, Studio City, Sylmar, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Three Points, Torrance, Valencia, Van Nuys, Ventura, Vernon, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westwood, West Los Angeles, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills.

California Supreme Court Allows Traffic Stops Based on Uncorroborated Tips

California Supreme Court Allows Traffic Stops Based on Uncorroborated Tips

In a setback for privacy and civil rights, the California Supreme Court has ruled that police can use anonymous tips to stop suspected drunk drivers even if the officer doesn’t spot any illegal activity. An attorney plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that a California Highway Patrol officer acted properly when he pulled over a San Joaquin Valley woman after an anonymous caller said her van was weaving, even though the officer witnessed no signs of impairment. The woman later failed a field sobriety test and was arrested for heroin possession.

The ruling gives police in California the broadest powers in the nation to pull over suspected drunk drivers and other motorists based only on anonymous tips. In recent months, the state has posted signs urging motorists to report suspected DUI / DWI drivers to the CHP. Those signs, coupled with the high court’s decision, open the door for abuse by drivers involved in road rage or grudges unrelated to criminal activity.

Three justices opposed the ruling, saying police should not be allowed to stop motorists without witnessing illegal activity. “One of the hallmarks of the liberty guaranteed to persons in this country is that agents of the government cannot arrest, seize or detain them without a good reason,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the minority.

The panel’s ruling comes on the heels of a string of high court decisions that erode the rights of criminal suspects across California and the nation. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that police can enter some DUI / DWI suspects’ homes without a warrant to administer chemical tests.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police can enter suspects’ homes without knocking if they have a valid search warrant. However, the justices also recently ruled that police cannot pat down a suspect for weapons based on an uncorroborated tip.

Defense attorneys decried the California Supreme Court’s ruling on anonymous tips as a setback for privacy and civil rights that may resonate for decades.

“Anyone can call in an anonymous tip for any reason,” said Darren T. Kavinoky, one of California’s top criminal defense attorneys. “This ruling essentially allows police to go on fishing expeditions in the vehicle of any driver unfortunate enough to be the target of an anonymous tipster.”

Despite the setback, motorists arrested for drunk driving or any other criminal offense involving an anonymous tip still have numerous options to launch an effective defense. An experienced California criminal defense attorney can challenge evidence on a number of fronts and dismantle a prosecutor’s case.

The top attorneys of the Kavinoky Law Firm are experienced in defending DUI / DWI cases and other criminal charges throughout California. The firm’s expert attorneys will develop an aggressive defense strategy to challenge charges of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, drug possession, or any other criminal offense.