Superior Court Of California, County of Stanislaus

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.