Need lawyer recomendation in San Diego county. | FerrariChat
Buy

Need lawyer recomendation in San Diego county.

Discussion in 'California & Nevada (Northern)' started by Artherd, Jul 21, 2005.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Artherd

    Artherd F1 Veteran

    Jun 19, 2002
    6,588
    Bay Area, CA
    Full Name:
    Ben Cannon
    #1 Artherd, Jul 21, 2005
    My little brother just allegedly blew a 0.09BAC. Looking for someone with a good track record on these. I belive there is a DMV hearing component as well.

    Belive the stop may not have had PC, he was in control of the vehicle and was pulled over because "I saw you take off on the freeway". Far as I know no radar or pacing.
     
  2. GCalo

    GCalo F1 Veteran

    Sep 15, 2004
    7,645
    Northern California
    Full Name:
    Greg Calo
    #2 GCalo, Jul 21, 2005
    P.C. can come about by many factors according to current Supreme Court rulings. Radar has nothing to do with a dui!

    With a high b.a.c. as you stated, there is doubt he was "in conrol of his car".

    He's got a problem.

    I'll see if I can find you a referral and pm you.

    He best get his checkbook ready to the tune of $10K-$12K, however!
     
  3. Artherd

    Artherd F1 Veteran

    Jun 19, 2002
    6,588
    Bay Area, CA
    Full Name:
    Ben Cannon
    #3 Artherd, Jul 21, 2005
    Thanks Greg.

    He (allegedly :) first passed *all* of the field sobriety checks, but then blew 3 times. .08, .09, .09.

    Frankly I thought he had a better head on his shoulders, and I've never actually seen him abuse alcohol. Hopefully this is a wake-up call, I am looking into doing more.

    PS: Regarding PC of the stop, I *think* the officer *may* have initiated the stop because he *belived* my brother was speeding. Which is miracilous given no *aparant* use of pacing or radar.

    He then (allegedly again) smelled alcohol.

    If he had no PC for the speeding stop, then any other evidence garnered is inadmissible.
     
  4. GCalo

    GCalo F1 Veteran

    Sep 15, 2004
    7,645
    Northern California
    Full Name:
    Greg Calo
    #4 GCalo, Jul 21, 2005
    "If he had no PC for the speeding stop, then any other evidence garnered is inadmissible"

    Wrong. PC has little to do with 4th amend search & seizure which this became.

    PC can come in different flavors and a good hunch can lay the ground work. Can be as simple as a turn w/o signal, etc.

    I'll try to find you a referral in the am.
     
  5. Artherd

    Artherd F1 Veteran

    Jun 19, 2002
    6,588
    Bay Area, CA
    Full Name:
    Ben Cannon
    #5 Artherd, Jul 23, 2005

    Hi Greg, PC has everything to do with search & siezure. If the stop was bad in the first place*, then any evidence acquired as a result of the stop will be suppressed before trial in a suppression hearing.

    And if ALL evidence is suppressed, The People have a very hard time prosecuting their case :)

    *= Like you said, very easy these days with the California Vehicle Code to obtain PC for a stop. Nearly anything can do it. Damage to car. No turn signal, 'weaving', etc. The cop can quite simply flagrantly lie ("he was weaving") in his police report after the fact, and it will hold. Sigh.
     
  6. GCalo

    GCalo F1 Veteran

    Sep 15, 2004
    7,645
    Northern California
    Full Name:
    Greg Calo
    #6 GCalo, Jul 23, 2005
    I did not intend to diminish the issue of PC.

    My emphasis was (although not fully explained) that with a.09 BAC, he's got big problems, and with that figure I doubt the court would suppress this!

    We also do not have all the facts of this. So, it's possible there is PC for a variety of reasons however minute!

    5-10 years ago the seach (BAC) may have been invalid on its face, but I doubt today with heightened awareness of DD that he'll be successful with an issue of supression.

    I hope for him he is successful, but I would not bet the ranch on it especially what I have seen and heard from a friend practicing here in CC county.
     
  7. Artherd

    Artherd F1 Veteran

    Jun 19, 2002
    6,588
    Bay Area, CA
    Full Name:
    Ben Cannon
    #7 Artherd, Jul 24, 2005
    Amazing (however I suppose not surprising) that a court would admit evidence of any sort that was garnered withought due process.

    0.09 is just 0.01 over the legal limit, yes?

     
  8. tvrfreak

    tvrfreak F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Mar 31, 2003
    3,879
    Arkansas
    Full Name:
    F K
    #8 tvrfreak, Jul 24, 2005
    Might be 0.04 over. Weren't they ratcheting down the acceptable BAC levels?

    Edit: DMV site says it is still 0.08. So yes, he's just 0.01 over. However, judges know that you can be impaired at 0.05, so being 0.01 over the legal limit just confirms that he was definitely under the influence in the eyes of the law.
     
  9. 4i2fly

    4i2fly Formula 3

    Apr 16, 2004
    1,333
    SF, Bay Area
    #9 4i2fly, Jul 25, 2005
    It's a bummer that someone gets caught under the influence (I personally never do it myself). But from the reading of 0.08, 0.09, 0.09 and I am not sure how the breathelizer works but the instrumentation might have gotten out of caliberation with the first blow and consecutive reading were taking when there were still paticulates of last blow in its system. If he passed all the other tests there could be ways of beating this conviction. Good luck.
     

Share This Page