Often these programs include strict conditions and supervision.  In San Francisco, pretrial release programs match defendants with support services, such as drug, alcohol, or anger management classes.  According to Garry Herceg, director of Santa Clara Office of Pretrial Services, 87% of their released defendants attend their court dates, only 3 percent re-offend, and the program saves $32 million a year. 

In California, It is unlikely that a judge would be able to sentence a defendant to such a long sentence for DUI with priors.

Watch out in Marin County, and remember to vote today!

The funding will also be used to pay for "state-of-the-art" breath alcohol testing equipment. 

This news should only add strength to the advice that anyone in Solano County being prosecuted for DUI should hire an experienced DUI defense attorney.  If the government has a specially trained and experienced DUI attorney coming after you, shouldn't you have a similarly trained and experienced attorney protecting your rights?

This issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in their 1966 Schmerber v. California decision.  In that case, the Court held that a warrantless and non-consented blood draw is constitutional if:  (1) It is done in a reasonable, medically approved manner, (2) is incident to a lawful arrest, and (3) is based upon reasonable belief the arrestee is intoxicated.  This decision was followed in California in the case of People v. Ford.  Ford held that to be reasonable, the privacy right involved must be weighed against the public need for evidence.  The first factor to consider is the extent to which the procedure may threaten the safety or health of the individual.  The next factor is the extent of the intrusion upon the individual's dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity.  They went on the hold that the public has a substantial interest in seeing their drunken driving laws enforced.  Ultimately, the Ford Court held that drawing blood from a non-consenting, but non-resisting individual, by a medical technician, in a police department, is permissible. 

It will be interesting to see in the coming months whether the side challenging forced blood draws will attempt to distinguish the present case from Schmerber, or will seek to overturn that decision entirely.  Stay tuned...

The law in California allows for situations where someone refuses to submit to a test.  Under the law of Implied Consent, it is implied that we all consent to providing a sample of our breath, blood, or urine for testing if suspected of DUI.  If a driver refuses to submit to a test he can be charged with a special enhancement for not doing so.  Also, the jury at his trial may be instructed that they may infer from his refusal to submit that he knew that he was over the limit. 

A forced blood draw can be very traumatic.  If the suspect refuses to comply after being told to choose a test, he is usually restrained by straps or a number of strong officers.  Often, the procedure is videotaped.  The arresting officer then reads verbatim the implied consent advisement, and the consequences of refusing.  She then asks him a final time to choose a test.  If he still refuses to comply, a certified phlebotomist inserts a needle in the suspects arm and obtains a sample. 

In my experience, police agencies that conduct forced bood draws are those that do so in their stations.  Those agencies that do not conduct forced blood draws are typically those that transport suspects to hospitals for blood draws.  I'm told that this is because many hospitals have strict policies against taking anyone's blood without their consent.  Many police agencies also may not do forced draws because they are concerned with excessive force lawsuites. 

The problem with refusing the test is thus:  Not only do you have to suffer the indignity of being poked with needles while strapped to a chair.  You also have to face additional charges for refusing, and the prosecution gets your blood regardless.  The jury also gets the inference instructions discussed above, and they get to see a video of you spitting a screaming during the blood draw.  My advice:  After you have been arrested, submit to a test.  You can fight the legality of the draw in court. 

Last year, there were 56 suspected DUI drivers arrested in Marin County over the same holiday period. 

San Francisco saw a 23% reduction, with 144 DUI arrests this year, compared to 186 arrests last year.  San Mateo saw 186 arrests this year, compared to 192 DUI arrests last year.  Santa Clara saw 368 arrests this year, compared to 441 DUI arrests last year.  Solano saw 65 DUI arrests this year, compared to 86 arrests last year.  With some bad news, Sonoma County arrested 169 suspected DUI drivers, compared to 175 DUI arrests last year. 

The best news of all is that all five of the above Bay Area counties reported ZERO DUI related fatalities this year. 

There will also be two additional DUI checkpoints over the crackdown period, on Friday the 24th and Saturday the 25th.  The times of locations of these two checkpoints have not been released at this time.  When they are I will post that information on this blog. 

While this case is certainly a sad turn for someone with a previously wholesome reputation, it should serve as a lesson of what not to do when arrested for a DUI.  Do not physically resist or fight with the officers, even if you don't think they have the right to do what they are doing.  Take the high road, and let your lawyer fight for you in court. 

According to Mr. Pearsall's attorney, Dan Russo, his client was suffering an adverse reaction to the presciption drug Ambien.  Ambien is precribed to treat insomnia.  In other words, it is a sleeping pill.  According to the Physician's Desk Reference website:

          After taking AMBIEN, you may get up out of bed while not being fully awake and do an activity that you do not know you are
          doing. The next morning, you may not remember that you did anything during the night. You have a higher chance for doing
          these activities if you drink alcohol or take other medicines that make you sleepy with AMBIEN.

The major problem with this a a defense to DUI is taking any drug before driving, including Ambien, can constitute driving under the influence if that drug has an appreciable effect on your ability to safely drive a car.  It is probably not a huge leap to assume that taking a sleeping pill before getting behind the wheel of a car might not be a great idea.  In order for Mr. Russo to win with this defense he must convince a jury that Mr. Pearsall reasonably did not know that taking Ambien would effect his ability to drive.  Another way to succeed with this defense would be to show that Mr. Pearsall was sleep driving, since the Government must prove that any DUI defendant voluntarily drove a car.  If he was asleep Mr. Pearsall did not act voluntarily. 

Mr. Schottey then suggests NFL athletes should put ignition interlock devices in their cars to prevent them from starting their cars if they have consumed alcohol.  He suggests that this could be voluntary at first, but implies that teams should make IID installation a part of a player's contract.  Can you imagine the outrage you would see if other large employers started requiring IIDs for all employees at all times, regardless of whether those employees have ever been convicted of DUI?  Many would consider that a violation of privacy.  Also, IIDs lock you out of your car if any alcohol is detected.  It is perfectly legal in all 50 states to drive a car after one or two drinks, as long as you are not intoxicated. 

Mr. Schottey does offer one constructive suggestion.  He recommends that the NFL program, where an inebriated player can get a ride and a tow home, should be free for players.  Currently, it costs players about $80.  Although most NFL players can clearly afford $80 for a ride and a tow, taking away that slight barrier to a safe ride home should be encouraged. 

While it is difficult to make judgements with limited information, I would say that it is usually not a good idea to submit to a PAS test.  Few officers tell people that this test is completely voluntary, unless you are a juvenile or on probation for DUI.  Unless you are positive you will come in under .08%, submitting to the PAS usually provides additional evidence to the prosecution that you don't need to provide. 

If the alleged facts are true, this case shows how tragic some driving under the influence cases can become.  Three lives were ruined that night:  The dead young man, his brother, and the driver, who must live with more than just the legal aftermath of such an occurrence.