Man Found Asleep in Car in OC High School Arrested DUI

Thursday, April 27th, 2017

The Orange County Sheriff’s Department found an intoxicated man asleep inside of his parked vehicle which was located in the middle of Aliso Niguel High School.

According to the Lt. Dan Dwyer of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Alexander Nixon, 23, of Las Vegas was arrested last week on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol when he was found asleep in his 2014 Dodge sedan which was parked inside of Aliso Niguel High School in Orange County.

Upon waking Nixon, officers suspected that he was under the influence. Nixon then told officers that he had been drinking before attempting to drive home. Nixon also told officers that he thought that he was in a parking lot in Santa Ana.

Nixon field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested on suspicion of a California DUI.

Although law enforcement said that the car was located in a back lot of the school, media photographs of the scene showed the car inside of an enclosed walkway leading to an outside seating area.

Had Nixon not confessed to driving, his situation raises an interesting question: Can prosecutors prove that a person drove (which is required for a California DUI) if the person was not seen driving, but their vehicle could have only reached its location through driving?

To be arrested, charged, and convicted of a California DUI, the prosecutor needs to prove that the defendant actually drove the vehicle. And California Courts have held that even slight movement will suffice to meet this requirement.

Movement of the vehicle can be proven through circumstantial evidence, meaning evidence that creates an inference of vehicle movement.

Such was the case in People v. Wilson (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1. The defendant in that case was found asleep in his car which was blocking the 60 freeway in Los Angeles.

The court concluded that “there was ample evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the defendant had been driving his vehicle on the public highway at a time when he was intoxication. From the combination of circumstances – defendant’s sitting in a vehicle in the center of the street–behind the wheel–engine running–lights on, it can be inferred that defendant must have placed himself in such position, and that he accomplished this by driving the car to the place at which he was found.”

The defendant in Wilson argued that it was possible that a friend drove him to the location and placed him in the driver’s seat. He also argued it was possible that the car was already in that position, he intended to drive it, but fell asleep before he could do so.

The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments stating, “It seems unlikely that in either situation the car would have been left parked in the middle of the street, straddling the traffic lanes and facing generally at right angles to the street. Suffice it to say that the jury apparently discarded these possibilities as being unreasonable and adopted the more likely deduction that defendant had driven himself to the area and was then unable to continue."

With that in mind, it seems unlikely prosecutors would even need Nixon’s confession that he drove to convict him of a California DUI. How else would his car have ended up in the middle of a high school?

Share

Another Weapon in the “War on Drunk Driving”: Forced Catheterization

Thursday, May 22nd, 2014

Just how far are we as a free nation willing to go in MADD's jihad on drunk driving?  

Well, how about ramming a catheter up a male DUI suspect's penis to get a urine sample for alcohol analysis — even after he has already had a blood sample taken?


C.P. Man Seeking $11M in Catheterization Lawsuit

Hammond, IN.  May 12 – A Crown Point man is seeking at least $11 million in damages from Schererville, two of its police officers and the owners of Franciscan St. Margaret Mercy Health in a federal lawsuit in which he said he was subjected to a forced catheterization following a traffic stop.

William B. Clark, a former Schererville resident, is suing the town, police Officers Matthew Djukic and Damian Murks and Franciscan Alliance Inc., doing business as St. Margaret Mercy…

In the lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court, Clark, 23, claims he was driving on U.S. 30 near the intersection of U.S. 41 in Schererville last May when he was stopped by Djukic. According to the lawsuit, Djukic allegedly observed the vehicle, which contained one other occupant, driving erratically and claimed he detected a moderate odor of alcohol in Clark's vehicle. Murks allegedly responded in a separate car.

The suit states that Djukic falsely claimed Clark's breath test results were 0.11, exceeding the legal limit of 0.08. The lawsuit also alleges the town failed to provide proof of the test result when a motion for discovery was filed in the criminal case against Clark, which is still pending.

According to his lawsuit, Clark submitted to a blood test at the Dyer hospital that showed his blood alcohol was below the legal limit. It states Djukic, however, became impatient with Clark's inability to urinate to provide a urine sample and made an effort to forcibly get the sample. The suit claims Djukic physically restrained Clark while hospital personnel inserted a catheter to extract the fluid.

The suit claims Murks either used inappropriate force against Clark or failed to take reasonable steps to protect him from being subjected to the use of such force.

The lawsuit states Clark allegedly "loudly moaned in pain" as the process began. It adds that the actions taken to obtain the sample were "painful, degrading and humiliating."…


An isolated incident?  Hardly.  See my previous posts:  Catheter Forced up Penis After DUI Arrest (Washington) and DUI Suspect Forced to Have Penis Catheterized (Utah), to name just two such incidents.   

What's next for citizens suspected of drunk driving?  Why not strap female DUI suspects down on a table and forcefully extract urine samples from them as well?
 

Share

How Do I Choose the Right DUI Attorney?

Monday, May 5th, 2014

“What’s the difference between lawyers and vultures?”

Let’s face it, we attorneys do not have a good rap. But obviously not all attorneys are bad. And when people have been arrested for DUI and are at their most vulnerable, they must rely on attorneys to navigate their case through the maze that is the law. So how do you choose the right DUI attorney — and what will a DUI lawyer cost?

First off, you’re going to have to do some research. With so much on the line, why would you not? Ask people you know for referrals. Check the ratings of attorneys on websites like avvo.com and yelp.com. Check to see if the attorney you’re considering has had any disciplinary action against them from the California Bar Association. You can check this at calbar.org.

When attorneys become licensed to practice law, they can practice any area of law. Does that necessarily mean that they are qualified to practice every area of law? No. There are many attorneys that are “general practitioners.” This means that they take cases ranging from probate law to real estate law to DUI defense. Personally, if I have a probate case, I’m going to go to a probate lawyer. Understanding the nuances of DUI law and the science involved is crucial in defending a DUI case. If you get arrested for a DUI, wouldn’t you want an attorney who only practices DUI defense or even criminal law?

Be wary of the attorney who calls your case a “slam dunk.” No case is a “slam dunk” and very few things in law are that black and white. The By law, attorneys cannot guarantee an outcome. In fact, most of the time, DUI attorneys don’t know the facts of the case until the first court date, which is when they obtain a copy of police report. Sure, you can tell the attorney your version of the story during the consultation, but that, very often, varies wildly from what the police say.

Expensive doesn’t necessarily mean good. Having said that, you also shouldn’t shop for the cheapest quote on the market. Find out what attorneys are charging for the services you’re looking for. Again, you’re going to have to do some research. I can tell you right now, most DUI attorneys charge a flat fee for DUI defense rather than an hourly fee. And that flat fee can range from below $1,000 all the way up to $10,000. Make sure that you’re comfortable with the price, the payment arrangements, and the services that you’re receiving for them.

Attorneys are not cheap. Don’t drop your hard earned dollars unless you are absolutely completely comfortable with the attorney and the relationship. After all, you are entrusting this person with representing you in a court of law.

The punchline to the joke is “wings.” Don’t get stuck with a vulture.

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