Recently, an Appellate Court in California affirmed a second degree murder conviction for a reckless driver who was alcohol/drug free because in part he had a previous DUI / Drunk Driving conviction. The prosecution introduced into evidence in the murder trial evidence of the prior DUI / Drunk Driving conviction and that the defendant attended an alcohol program in the prior DUI / Drunk Driving case that discussed the risks of driving dangerously and therefore the defendant was aware of the risks. Once the defendant was aware of the risks, the jury was allowed to infer malice which would justify a second degree murder conviction. Therefore, anyone who has a DUI / Drunk Driving conviction and gets into an accident in which the state feels the driver was reckless can be charged and convicted of second degree murder.

Agents of the State Bureau of Investigations for North Carolina discovered that state crime lab analysts either overstated, omitted or falsified results of blood evidence in dozens of cases. In three of those cases, the defendants were executed. Apparently from 1987-2003, prosecutors were aided by agents of the State Bureau of Investigations who were misrepresenting blood evidence and keeping crucial notes from defense attorneys as well. The above findings were a result of a review 190 cases ordered by the State Attorney General after a man was imprisoned for 17 years for a murder he didn’t commit. As I have reported previously, state crime labs throughout California and the US are routinely used to prosecute people arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently held that a cross hanging from the rear view mirror was not a sufficient basis to stop a driver which resulted in a DUI / Drunk Driving arrest. As a result, all evidence obtained as a result of the stop was not admissible and the conviction thrown out. The State claimed that the hanging cross could have posed a distraction but presented no evidence to support their position. One time I was in court watching another case when the State claimed that a Union 76 orange ball placed on the top of an antenna blocked the driver’s view and that was the reason why the police pulled him over. Police often look for any type of unusual minor decorations to stop a driver for DUI / Drunk Driving, even cracked windshields!

The Huntington Beach Police Department has recommended to the Huntington Beach City Council that names of drivers arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving be published. The police department considered publishing the names after a local newspaper stopped publishing the names last December. The City of Irvine already publishes the names of people arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving, as well as other crimes, on the Irvine Police Department website. In addition, the Huntington Beach Police Department has been keeping track of establishments that drivers arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving say they consumed their last drink. What’s interesting about this is that police officers generally do not believe the number of drinks a DUI / Drunk Driving suspect states was consumed. Why should they believe where suspected drivers say that had their last drink?

As of July 1, 2010, repeat DUI / Drunk Driving offenders will be eligible for early license restrictions. A person convicted of a second DUI / Drunk Driving offense will be eligible for a restricted driver’s license after completing a 90 suspension provided the person installs an ignition interlock device on any vehicle the person owns and/or has access to for a period of 12 months. A person convicted of a third DUI / Drunk Driving offense will be eligible for a restricted driver’s license after completing a 6 month suspension provided the person installs an ignition interlock device on any vehicle the person owns and/or has access to for a period of 24 months. The Department of Motor Vehicles is to notify the convicted driver upon receiving notification of the convictions from the courts.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that a Spanish speaking driver arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving should have had the requirements that he submit to a breath test and the consequences for refusing to submit read to him in Spanish. As a result, his DUI / Drunk Driving conviction was overturned. After the driver was arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving, the police read a statement requiring a breath test and the consequences of refusing to the driver in English. However, at trial, the driver testified through an interpreter he did not understand. According to a spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, there are over 150 different languages spoken in New Jersey. However, there are nine foreign languages spoken which accounts for 90% of foreign languages that are translated in court for DUI / Drunk Driving cases.

As of July, 1, 2010, all first time DUI / Drunk Driving offenders who are convicted in Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento and Tulare counties will be required to install an ignition interlock device (IID) on any vehicle they own or have access to for five months. This is a pilot project that was finalized just days before July 1. The Department of Motor Vehicles will be required to send notices to the first time convicted DUI / Drunk Driving drivers that the IID must be installed with 30 days. This is a very unfair law. It applies to people who were arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving before July 1, 2010 instead of applying only to people who were arrested on or after July 1, 2010. Of course the IID companies are looking to make perhaps millions off the new law.

The Supreme Court of Michigan recently reversed a driver’s conviction while allegedly driving under the influence of marijuana because having the presence of “carboxy” in the system in not a crime in Michigan. Carboxy is a metabolite that is created when THC (an active ingredient in marijuana) breaks down. Experts have shown that carboxy can be found in the system for weeks and does not indicate a driver is impaired for DUI prosecutions. The court ordered prosecutors to stop prosecuting drivers for DUI based on the presence of carboxy in the drivers’ system. The recent Michigan Supreme Court decision reversed a 2006 decision by the same court. Prosecuting drivers for DUI-drugs is very difficult as there are few, if any, scientific studies concluding illegal drugs causes impairment.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris announced she is creating an independant crime lab seperate from the police department as a result of the recent problems surrounding the San Francisco crime lab. As you may recall, one of the crime lab technicians was alleged to have drug problems and used inventoried drugs personally while working at the crime lab. So far, about 550 drug cases have been dismissed. In DUI / Drunk Driving cases, both blood and on occasion urine tests are routinely analyzed and tested by law enforcement crime labs. In addition, technicians or chemists from these crime labs are routinely used to testify in court for the prosecution in DUI / Drunk Driving cases. Going forward, the San Francisco District Attorney’s office will prepare guidelines in dealing with misconduct by law enforcement employees.

I was recently trying a DUI / Drunk Driving case in Torrance, California. During one of the breaks, I was speaking with one of the arresting officers. He indicated that in this bad economy, it seems more people are driving with expired license plates because they don’t have the money to keep them current. Driving with expired license plates is a sufficient basis in which to stop a driver. Obviously, these types of stops can lead to more DUI / Drunk Driving investigations and arrests. It won’t matter if the driver is otherwise not violating any other traffic laws. The stop and subesquent investigation and/or arrest and possible DUI / Drunk Driving conviction can be even more devistating.