When DUI Officers Lie
Another “DUI SuperCop” Caught Framing Innocent Citizens: "As I’ve indicated in previous posts, there is a growing phenomenon of cops across the country trying to get the acclaim, promotions and money that come with 'DUI SuperCop' status — by framing innocent motorists. See, for example, SuperCops…and SuperCons, SuperCops: The Smoking Gun and Another DUI SuperCop. Here’s another one who simply happened to get caught:"
(Via DUI BLOG.)
Seattle DUI Cases
Aaron Wolff, a Seattle DUI lawyer, posted a blog entry at DUI attorney blog about the details of a Seattle DUI arrest. Mr. Wolff points out that the differences between cities can be stark when it comes to processing a DUI.
For example, the Seattle Police Department uses different forms than other Washington State Police agencies.
Like Mr. Wolff, I think it is important that people appreciate and understand that different cities, even within the same county, treat DUI arrests very differently.
I am curious to hear from lawyers in other jurisdictions about the details of the DUI arrest and court process in their local courts.
One man's assessment of stupid DUI laws
Here is a very well-done video we found on YouTube which discusses the question of whether DUI laws are rational. The quality of the video production is superb, and the discussion may be eye-opening to some.
The narrator discusses the death toll from impaired drivers as an insignificant number. We couldn't disagree more with that proposition. Even if, as the narrator says, drunken drivers kill fewer people each year than the flu, there is a major difference. Any DUI death is the direct result of somebody's decision. You can point directly to the actions of a human being that took another human being's life.
You simply can't compare death by a virus to a death by a drunk driver, so the analogy fails in my opinion. Nevertheless, if the scenario of the narrator's DUI arrest is accurate (which I find difficult to believe), then the law has gone too far. A person riding or walking a bike while drunk is little danger to anybody other than him or herself. Unless we are going back to the prohibition (which didn't work the first time around), then we need to stop criminalizing drinking through back door methods such as enacting stupid DUI laws.
Tie the DUI judge down to a ruling: Lesson from Montana DUI Law
The Montana Supreme court, in an unpublished DUI case shows that a vague factual conclusion does not always support an appeal. The lesson to be learned is to always tie your judge down.
The Cite: Supreme Court of Montana. STATE of Montana (City of Great Falls), Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kimbrli Lavon ROSS, Defendant and Appellant. No. DA 07-0740. Submitted on Briefs Sept. 3, 2008. Decided Nov. 10, 2008.
Despite Ross's claim that the Municipal Court rejected evidence from Officer Scheer that Ross's tires hit the curb as it completed the turn onto First Avenue North, there is no evidence to support this contention. The Municipal Court stated the following in its findings of fact:
The officer also testified that the defendant cut the corner at 15th Street and First Ave N. causing her tires to rub against the curb; the defendant disputed that testimony and the videotape did not show the maneuver.
Contrary to Ross's interpretation, the fact that the court recognized that the videotape did not show the bumping of the curb does not mean that the court thereby rejected the officer's testimony that Ross's tires rubbed the curb. Read in context, it is clear that the court accepted Officer Scheer's testimony on this point. We do note that it would facilitate review of decisions if courts, in their fact finding would make declarative findings of fact, instead of merely reciting what a witness said. Such declarations of fact should, of course, be based upon testimony or evidence before the court.
ANALYSIS AND PRACTICE TIP: Tie the judge down on the record. Make sure that there is not any wiggle room factually when you must appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. DUI cases require follow up.
It surprises me when I see DUI lawyers who otherwise did a great job in a motions hearing blindly accept a vague ruling from a judge. Ask for clarification when it is warranted. If the judge refuses to give it, say something like "Your Honor, I understand your ruling to mean..." and then spell out the conclusion that you need to support your record on appeal. Even if the judge clarifies against your client's interest, you are better off knowing at the trial court level rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to shoot you down. Your client will appreciate that you at least saved him the additional cost of a pointless appeal.
DMV Hearings - Claims that they are rigged in California
In a post today, Lawrence Taylor of duiblog.com made the assertion that DMV hearings in California May be rigged. The basics are that the head hearing officer issued a scathing memo berating judges for bad decisions allowing people to keep their licenses.
The judges or hearing officers who listen to these cases are supposed to be neutral. It is a basic premise of due process. Typically, administrative law judges decisions are reviewable by an appeals court, not the supervisor in the office.
The memo quoted in Mr. Taylor's post makes it sound like the lower ALJ's jobs may be in danger if the boss doesn't agree with their rulings. However, there is no hint that the boss would be reviewing cases where the ALJ suspended the driver's license, only those where no suspension was issued.
The conclusion to be drawn, if the memo is authentic, is that any ALJ in that office that wants to keep his or her job secure would be best served by issuing suspensions, since non-suspensions would be reviewed.
If this is true it is a shameful slap in the face of lawyers and judges who work hard to maintain our justice system, along with due process. No matter which side you are aligned with in the great drunk driving divide, nobody with any legal training who cares about our system could, with clear conscience, condone this memo.
