#DUIdata (Blog)

More on Sanchez hearsay and Ident-A-Drug. People v. Espinoza

Posted by on August 17, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

More on Sanchez hearsay and Ident-A-Drug. People v. Espinoza

In 2016, the Cal Supremes gave us Sanchez (63 Cal.4th 665). The rule in Sanchez is that experts cannot opine on a single, fact-specific hearsay (out of court statement) when testifying. Well, you know we can’t just leave it at that. So we’ve had appeals on that ruling. And the Court of Appeals are batting around the drug website Ident-A-Drug. Specifically, in 2017 the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five gave us People v. Mooring (15 Cal. App. 5th 928), which I got blawgy with here. Moorings held expert testimony...

read more

If running a motion to suppress based on several searches, Defendant must identify government conduct that is objectionable.

Posted by on July 30, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

If running a motion to suppress based on several searches, Defendant must identify government conduct that is objectionable.

California Penal Code 1358.5 provides that evidence obtained in a warrantless search in violation of the 4th Amendment (unlawful search and seizure) can be suppressed. Well, what if Defendant is claiming there were several searches…and several pieces of evidence unlawfully obtained from the different searches? When filing the Motion to Suppress, must Defendant specifically identify which searches that are being objected to? From the May 15, 2018 decision Davis v. App. Division*, yes, Defendant must specifically identify the searches....

read more

Can the Prosecution comment on you not calling an alibi witness?

Posted by on July 25, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

Can the Prosecution comment on you not calling an alibi witness?

Let’s say you on trial for murder. The defense argument is the People cannot prove you actually did it, and that maybe you had an alibi. But…assume Defense does not call any witnesses for this alibi “Defendant was somewhere else” defense. With that, can the Prosecutor comment that Defense didn’t call any alibi witnesses? Well, we know any Defendant has a right to remain silent. And it’s improper if the Prosecution comments in trial about Defendant not testifying (it’s called Griffin Error, per the...

read more

New diversion program in California for misdemeanors and felonies

Posted by on July 5, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

New diversion program in California for misdemeanors and felonies

California Assembly Bill 1810 has been signed by the Governor, and this diversion program has immediately become law as California Penal Code 1001.36. This law is similar to diversion for military persons per California Penal Code 1001.80. First, keep in mind this may not be available for someone accused of DUI (see California Vehicle Code 23640). Although there were arguments from the People to stop the military diversion from applying to DUIs, and some Courts ruled military diversion DOES apply to DUIs (although the law was simply rewritten...

read more

Can the People dismiss, refile the same charges, then paper the same Judge? A’nope. Birts v. Superior Court

Posted by on July 1, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

Can the People dismiss, refile the same charges, then paper the same Judge? A’nope. Birts v. Superior Court

I have to begin by saying that this case is just silly. Check out this timeline: The case gets assigned to a Trial Judge. The Judge ruled on several pretrial motions against the People, and then they dismiss for insufficient evidence. The People file charges the next day with a new case number, although there are no new facts. The case goes to trial again and gets assigned to the same Judge as before. And the People move to disqualify the Judge per CCP 170.6. The Court finds this to be improper under the “continuation rule” which precludes “a...

read more

Is a check swab for a felony offense an unreasonable search? People v. Buza

Posted by on July 1, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

Is a check swab for a felony offense an unreasonable search? People v. Buza

Is a check swab for a felony offense an unreasonable search? The California Supreme Court say no, per their April 2, 2018 decision People v. Buza. Here, Defendant was arrested and booked on felony arson charges. For booking, the Jail required a cheek swab per the DNA Act (California Penal Code 298.1(a)), which Defendant refused. So he got an added criminal charge of refusing to provide a DNA sample. Jurors convicted across the board on all charges, both the arson and the DNA refusal. Defendant argues the cheek swab is an unreasonable search,...

read more

Can Police search your car two blocks away? People v. Johnson

Posted by on June 30, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

Can Police search your car two blocks away? People v. Johnson

A car parked two blocks away from arrest is not within the automobile search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest. This is from the March 28, 2018 Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div. decision People v. Johnson, 21 Cal. App. 5th 1026. Let’s grab a quick recap of Constitutional rights and Police searching your vehicle, and then discuss Johnson. To start, “[a] search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-established exception to the general rule prohibiting warrantless searches.” The reasoning: Officer safety and possible...

read more

More decisions on implied consent as we await Arredondo

Posted by on June 10, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

More decisions on implied consent as we await Arredondo

From February 26, 2016, the Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District decided People v. Arredondo which discussed whether implied consent for a DUI blood draw is actual consent (see 245 Cal.App.4th 186). I blogged about Arredondo here. Implied consent meaning that when you apply for a California driver license, CA DMV makes you sign into a statement saying if you’re arrested for DUI in California that you have given implied consent to submit to a chemical test. In Arredondo Defendant crashed his car, leaving him unconscious. About 90...

read more

You’re factually innocent…but you must wait the statutory time to motion for it.

Posted by on April 3, 2018 in #DUIdata | 0 comments

You’re factually innocent…but you must wait the statutory time to motion for it.

Yep, you read the heading correctly. If Police arrest you for a crime, but then you’re factually innocent for that crime, you can still make a motion for factual innocence per California Penal Code 851.8 to have your arrest records sealed and destroyed…but you must first wait the statutory period the People have to file charges against you (usually it’s 1 year from arrest for misdemeanors, and 3 years for felonies). Real quick, this is California law and may differ outside of California. Ok, let’s discuss: This is from...

read more

Can you plead guilty, THEN appeal on grounds of unconstitutionality?

Posted by on April 2, 2018 in #DUIdata, Uncategorized | 0 comments

Can you plead guilty, THEN appeal on grounds of unconstitutionality?

The US Supreme Court just laid out this issue: Does a guilty plea by itself bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal? Restated: if you plead guilty to doing “it”… but “it” was not illegal…can you appeal and challenge the prosecution as being unconstitional? The US Supremes say even if you plead guilty, you can still appeal a conviction on the challenge of constitutionality. This whole situation makes me think of the Muppets in this scene in Muppets Most Wanted when...

read more