California DWI – Driving While Addicted

Monday, May 19th, 2014

Believe it or not, it is a crime in California to drive while being addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Lesser known California Vehicle Code section 23152(c) provides: “It is unlawful for any person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle.”

You may be asking yourself the same thing I did when I first read it. Huh?

The “huh?” was the reactionary expression of two other questions: What’s the purpose? And who is an addict?

In the 1965 case of People v. O’Neil, the California Supreme Court addressed both of these issues by looking at the legislative intent of 23152(c). The court determined that “when an individual has reached the point that his body reacts physically to the termination of drug administration, he has become ‘addicted’ within the meaning and purpose of [23152(c)]. Although physical dependency or the abstinence syndrome is but one of the characteristics of addiction, it is of crucial import in light of the purpose of [23152(c)] since it renders the individual a potential danger on the highway.”

While the court focused on the theory that an addict going through withdrawals can pose a risk to the roads, it said that a person need not be going through withdrawals to be arrested, charged, and convicted of California’s driving while addicted law.

“The prosecution need not prove that the individual was actually in a state of withdrawal while driving the vehicle. The prosecution’s burden is to show (1) that the defendant has become ‘emotionally dependent’ on the drug in the sense that he experiences a compulsive need to continue its use, (2) that he has developed a ‘tolerance’ to its effects and hence requires larger and more potent doses, and (3) that he has become ‘physically dependent’ so as to suffer withdrawal symptoms if he is deprived of his dosage.”

So let’s get this straight. You can be charged with a crime if you’re addicted to drugs or alcohol even if you’re not intoxicated or you’re not going through withdrawals. So then that begs the question: What’s the point?

Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court has yet to answer that question.

Fortunately, however, the law does not apply to those who are participating in a narcotic treatment program.

Well it’s nice to know that the law only protects those who are receiving treatment for their disease, but not those who aren’t.

Share

Does Presence of Marijuana in Blood Constitute Drunk Driving?

Saturday, May 17th, 2014

It is, of course, against the law to driver under the influence of marijuana (sometimes called "stoned driving"). In most cases, a blood sample will be drawn and analyzed to provide evidence of impariment. And as I've discussed in previous posts, there are nearly insurmountable problems law enforcement and prosecutors have with this.  See, for example, Identifying and Proving DUI Marijuana ("Stoned Driving"), Driving + Traces of Marijuana = DUI, How Accurate is Detection and Evidence of Drugged Driving? and DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving?     

Quite simply, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove that the presence of given levels of marijuana in the blood proves that the suspect was impaired when driving.  First, there is very little agreement on how much marijuana it takes to impair a driver's physical and mental faculties.  Second, it is difficult to determine from blood tests what the active levels were at the time of driving. It is a scientific fact that inactive metabolites of marijuana remain in the bloodstream for weeks.  

But, of course, there is a simple solution — similar to one created a few years ago which made it easier to convict citizens accused of driving while under the influence of alcohol.  Fqced with difficulties in proving alcohol impairment, the various states simply passed so-called "per se" laws — laws which made having .08% of alcohol in the blood while driving a crime.  Impairment was no longer an issue to be proven; the crime was simply having the alcohol in your blood.  And the conviction rates increased dramatically.  

Today, a similar approach is being used by a growing number of states:  making the mere presence of marijuana in the blood while driving a crime — regardless of whether it had any effect.

Some courts, however, are beginning to have concerns about this "per se" approach:


Presence of THC Metabolite in Blood Does Not Prove Impaired Driving , Arizona Supreme Court Finds

Phoenix, AZ  – Arizonans who smoke marijuana can’t be charged with driving while impaired absent actual evidence they are affected by the drug, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The justices rejected arguments by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office that a motorist whose blood contains a slight amount of a certain metabolite of marijuana can be presumed to be driving illegally because he or she is impaired, saying medical evidence shows that’s not the case.

The ruling most immediately affects the 40,000-plus Arizonans who are legal medical marijuana users. It means they will not be effectively banned from driving, given how long the metabolite, carboxy-THC, remains in the blood.

It also provides legal protection against impaired-driving charges for anyone else who drives and has used marijuana in the last 30 days — legal or otherwise — as well as provides a shield for those who might be visiting from Washington or Colorado, where recreational use of the drug is legal.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said Tuesday’s ruling will result in roads that are less safe. He said if courts will not accept carboxy-THC readings as evidence of impairment, then there is no way of knowing who is really “high” and who is not…


A breath of fresh air in the ongoing hysteria of MADD's "War on Drunk Driving"…
 

Share

Deputy Crashes into Car, Breaking Driver’s Neck…then Arrests Her for DUI

Tuesday, May 6th, 2014

As I've repeatedly written on this blog, DUI can be an extremely subjective offense.  Although there may be a breathalyzer or blood alcohol test involved — and these are inherently unreliable — much if not most of the "evidence" depends upon the arresting officer's testimony: driving symptoms, physical appearance, slurred speech, red eyes, impaired coordination and judgment, poor performance on "field sobriety tests", incriminating statements, etc.  All of these depend upon the cop's perceptions, expertise…and honesty.   

So what happens when a cop smashes into another car, causing an accident so violent that the other driver's neck is broken?  Simple:  arrest her for drunk driving.


Sober Driver Arrested for OWI When Deputy Crashes Into Her Car

Milwaukee, WI.  May 3 – A Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Deputy rolls through a stop sign and causes a violent crash. So why was the victim placed under arrest?

A FOX6 Investigation finds that a deputy’s changing story may have changed one woman’s life forever.

Tanya Weyker was hurt so badly, she couldn’t blow into a breath-testing device or perform field sobriety tests.  But a Sheriff’s deputy arrested her for drunk driving anyway.  And the County hung those charges over her head for nearly a year, even long after blood tests proved she was perfectly sober.

Tanya Weyker remembers it clearly. Not just the crash that broke her neck in four places, but the false accusations that followed.

“My reputation is everything to me,” she said.

At the age of 25, Weyker’s criminal history is as flawless as her posture. She was diagnosed with cancer at age three, and the prolonged radiation treatments literally curved her spine. So doctors inserted metal rods to keep her back straight.  The lifelong medical complications have not stopped her from pursuing a college degree. Or from driving a car. In fact, Weyker had never gotten so much as a speeding ticket until the night she crossed paths with Milwaukee County Deputy Sheriff Joseph Quiles.

It was February 20th, 2013, and Deputy Quiles was working the night shift on patrol at General Mitchell International Airport.

As he pulled out onto Howell Avenue to make his rounds, he T-boned a passing car and sent it spinning into a tree.

“Very scary,” Weyker recalls.

Her spine was already fused with steel. Now, she had a fractured neck to go with it.

“It was a miracle I wasn’t paralyzed,” she said.

As rescue workers tended to Weyker, police and Sheriff’s deputies started asking questions.

“One asked if I had anything to drink that night,” she said. “And I told them a few sips from a friend’s drink.”

A deputy noted a light odor of alcohol on her breath. He said her speech was slurred. And her eyes looked red and glassy.

“I explained to him my eyes were red and glassy because I was crying,” she said….

In his official report, Deputy Quiles wrote that he stopped at the stop sign and looked both ways before pulling out.  He told a Milwaukee police officer that he never saw any headlights, even though Weyker’s Camry had lights that come on automatically.

“I knew I was innocent this whole time,” Weyker declared.

The truth might never have surfaced were it not for video from a nearby airport surveillance camera. It shows what investigators say is Deputy Quiles’ squad car traveling west on Hutsteiner Avenue, then continuing onto Howell without making a complete stop, as Quiles claimed in his report. The Sheriff’s Office knew about the video just two days after the crash.  But no one told Weyker.

Instead, the County sent letters blaming her for the crash and threatening legal action if she didn’t pay for the damage.

Of course, if Weyker was drunk, it would have been easy to pin the blame on her. But less than a month after the crash, test results showed she had no alcohol in her system. And by July, her drug test came back negative too. Five months after the crash, it was clear Weyker had been stone cold sober.

But still the case didn’t go away.

“I don’t think it is fair at all,” Weyker said.

Five more months passed before a prosecutor finally looked at the case and declined to file charges. But even then, Weyker says, she was left in the dark.

“No one called me.”…


So…an isolated incident, right?  Think again.  The only thing that distinguishes this case from thousands like it across the country is the fact that Deputy Qiles caught two bad breaks:


1.  His "drunk driving investigation" was recorded by a nearby surveillance camera.  What are the odds of this happening in any other DUI case?

2.  In most cases where a cop doesn't want a breath test contradicting his "evidence", he simply writes in his arrest report the magic words:  "Suspect was asked to submit to a breath test but refused."  It's that simple.  In this case that wasn't necessary: the suspect was physically unable to give a breath sample.  What Deputy Qiles didn't realize, however, was that the hospital treating Ms. Weyker would in the normal course of treatment take a blood test — and that the hospital lab would find that there was no trace of alcohol.


Absent these very fortuitous events, Ms. Weyker would have been prosecuted for DUI.  And who do you think a jury would believe?  The sworn testimony of an experienced and impartial police officer?  Or that of an accused drunk driver?  

If it were not for these two lucky breaks, Ms. Weyker would have been convicted, punished and branded with "drunk driver" for the rest of her life.  

And it happens all the time…
 

Share

The Use of Dash Cams in DUI Stops

Friday, April 25th, 2014

 

Many Southern California law enforcement agencies are beginning to use dashboard cameras (“dash cams” or “MVARS”) to capture traffic stops which lead to DUI arrests. In fact, many of these videos can be found on youtube.com showing DUI suspects miserably failing field sobriety tests, slurring their words, and otherwise providing evidence of their intoxication.

The dash cam, however, need not provide only incriminating evidence.

Dash cams are objective. Unfortunately, officers are not. Dash cams record what occurred as it occurred. Unfortunately, officers write their police reports hours after the incident occurred and well after their memory of the incident begins to fade.

The dash cam recording typically captures the suspect’s driving prior to the stop, the stop, any field sobriety tests performed, conversations between the officer and the suspect, and the arrest. Believe it or not, dash cam footage can and oftentimes directly contradicts the arresting officer’s report.

Law enforcement needs probable cause of a traffic violation to initiate a traffic stop, which is usually the first step in the DUI investigation process. Absent probable cause, a driver cannot be pulled over. Unfortunately, many officers fabricate the probable cause for stop, claiming that a driver never used a blinker, or they were swerving, or they ran a stop sign, so on, so forth. The dash cam, however, can show that there was no probable cause for the stop. It can show that the blinker was used, there was no swerving, and the driver did stop at the stop sign.

Once the stop is initiated, it can quickly turn into a DUI investigation when the officer notices the driver’s slurred speech, or so they claim. The dash cam can capture the driver speaking perfectly fine.

Before officers can arrest someone for DUI, they must have probable cause that the driver was driving drunk. How do they obtain the probable cause? Officers use field sobriety tests, as unreliable as they may be. And although a person may perform well on the tests, it is not uncommon for officers to claim in their report that the driver failed the tests. The dash cam can capture the driver performing well on the field sobriety tests.

Officers often claim that a suspect resisted arrest. Dash cam can show that officers are sometimes the aggressors. According to “Good Morning America,” such was the case with 30-year-old Marcus Jeter from New Jersey, who was cleared of resisting arrest and assault when a dash cam video showed that the arresting officers were the aggressors.

Unfortunately, even in those agencies which used dash cams, some officers are finding their own ways to cloud the transparency that dash cams provide.

I recently defended a case where the officers claimed that the DUI suspect “failed” the field sobriety tests without explaining how. I seriously questioned the veracity of the officer’s extremely vague (yet not uncommon) accusations. My client was 6’ 3”, 220 lbs., a regular drinker, and his blood alcohol content was alleged to be 0.08 percent.

Surely, the dash cam would show my client performing well on the field sobriety tests. He very well may have, but I would not have known because the officer took my client out of camera view to perform the tests.

Fortunately for my client’s case, the prosecutor recognized that the officer was merely attempting to circumvent the accountability of the dash cam. In fact, she disclosed that this is not an unusual tactic for officers. She also acknowledged that such tactics place prosecutors in a difficult position when prosecuting DUIs. Understandably, it must be difficult to endorse an officer’s extremely vague police report when the officer attempts to hide the truth. 

People suspected of driving under the influence should seek to obtain a copy of the dash cam footage if it is available. It could prove to be helpful in defending a DUI case. Remember, unlike officers, dash cams can't lie.

Share

Anonymous “Tips” Now Enough to Stop Drivers for DUI

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court has done it again.

Yesterday, in a typical 5-4 decision, the Court held that an anonymous tip — an unidentified call with absolutely no indication of truth or reliability — was sufficient to justify police stopping a driver on the road and detaining him on suspicion of drunk driving.  Navarette v. California

Amazing.

The Fourth Amendment of our Constitution clearly states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…but upon probable cause".   In other words, a cop can't just stop a driver on suspicion of drunk driving unless he has "probable cause" — a reasonable belief — that he is intoxicated. 

So, the issue is:  Does a telephone tip from an unidentified source constitute a reasonable suspicion of guilt — even where the responding cop sees no indication of drunk driving?  Or, for example, can an anonymous phone call from a spiteful former wife or a disgruntled neighbor be enough to get you pulled over by the police and subjected to a DUI investigation?

As I've said so many times on this blog, there exists a DUI Exception to the Constitution — and there is no better example of this than the Supreme Court holding in Navarette.  But it's easy for some to ignore these destructions of our constitutional rights, since they only apply to those "drunk drivers", right?  The problem is, as I've also repeatedly written, we are a nation of legal precedent : a loss of constitutional protections in a DUI case will be used as a precedent in any other criminal case.  See my post, Who Cares About the Rights of Those Accused of DUI?.  


Clarence Thomas vs. Antonin Scalia on 4th Amendment and 'Reasonable Suspicion'

Washington, DC.  April 22 - The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major ruling today with profound implications for the Fourth Amendment rights of all persons who drive or ride in automobiles on public roads. At issue in Navarette v. California was a traffic stop prompted by an anonymous call to 911 claiming that a truck had driven the caller off the road. Going by the information supplied in that call alone, the police located a matching truck in the vicinity of the alleged incident and pulled it over on suspicion of drunk driving. That stop led to the discovery of 30 pounds of marijuana stashed in the truck.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether that single anonymous tip to 911 provided the police with reasonable suspicion to stop the truck. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled that the "the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated." While this is a "close case," Thomas acknowledged, it still passes constitutional muster. Joining Thomas in that judgment was Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito.

Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia came out swinging against Thomas. "The Court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail," Scalia declared, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. It elevates an anonymous and uncorroborated tip above the bedrock guarantee of the Fourth Amendment. "All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police." That state of affairs, Scalia declared, "is not my concept, and I am sure it would not be the Framers', of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."

So even if such a telephone call were reliable — and there is now no longer requirement that it has to be — you can be stopped for suspicion of drunk driving if the caller says that you were…speeding.  Even if  the responding cop sees no evidence that you are intoxicated.

In his dissent, Justice Antonio Scalia wrote further:

Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving. I respectfully dissent.

…and they continue to chip away at our Constitutional freedoms.
 

Share