Fresno Criminal Lawyer Blog

Just received notice this morning that we received a stunning win on a DUI case. All observations and evidence gathered subsequent to the stop was suppressed. The issue was based upon the officer stopping the vehicle for lack of a front license plate, however, the vehicle was properly registered out of state. Citing People v. Reyes and People v. Teresinski, the court held that the officer's mistake of law that the vehicle required a front plate constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We're very pleased with the ruling.

A recent case out of Iowa highlights why challenging breath testing as well as a well-timed motion to suppress in a Fresno DUI case can be highly beneficial to a defendant.

In State v. Walker, a man was arrested for DUI and requested to speak with his lawyer. But the police violated his rights by video-recording the conversation with his attorney, ruling out evidence they collected to use against him.

As any good Fresno DUI defense lawyer will tell you, a meeting between an attorney and client must be completely private. Important issues are discussed, strategies may be developed and the defendant's words should not be made public. It is a private conversation.

Even in jail settings, there must be rooms without microphones so that private meetings can take place without fear someone is listening. In Walker's case, that didn't happen.

According to court documents, the man was arrested and charged with "operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated," which is the name of the charge used in Iowa instead of "drunken driving." He asked to speak with his lawyer.

But the area they set up was in a booth that required the two to speak by intercom, and they were separated by a glass partition. The whole time the two were being monitored by a police video camera. It's highly likely that their conversation was subjected to the recording, making it a public conversation.

After conferring with his lawyer, the man agreed to take a breath test, which measured his blood-alcohol level at more than double the legal limit. But the man moved to have the test results suppressed, alleging the police violated his rights under an Iowa code that guarantees that he can meet with his attorney "alone and in private."

The judge agreed and granted the motion, tossing out the results of the breath test. But a court of appeals reversed the decision. When appealed to the state Supreme Court, justices reversed the appellate court's decision and again tossed out the breath test evidence.

While this may be a rare situation, defendants' rights are often violated during police investigations. While they may not happen in this type of similar situation, there are a variety of ways that a person can have his or her rights violated by police:

• By telling police they want to speak with a lawyer and having officers press them into confessing
• When officers search a person's house or person without justification
• During DUI investigations when an officer might pull over a vehicle without probable cause

But the remedy is often that evidence collected by officers who aren't doing their jobs correctly isn't allowed at trial. When law enforcement officers go against the rules and procedures and try to collect material to be used against a defendant, they get punished by watching that work go out the door.

And the defendant watches the potentially damaging evidence be held out of trial because they suffered by having their rights stripped away. An experienced Fresno criminal defense lawyer will be able to spot when rights have been violated and when motions need to be filed in order to keep out evidence that was wrongly obtained.

Continue reading "State v. Walker Shows Why Breath Testing, Rights Violations Must Be Examined in Fresno DUIs" »

As Fresno Criminal Defense Attorney, I am often confronted with the Miranda question. Clients will often bemoan the fact that police officers did not read them their Miranda rights prior to placing them under arrest. This is by far the most common complaint that clients raise when I see them in my office. Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), has become one of the most famous cases of all time. It's fame if, of course, due in large part to t.v. crime dramas such as Law and Order and old episodes of Hill Street Blues.

However, Miranda warnings only come into play if the cops want to use a statement against you in court. Many lay people in Fresno, and the rest of the United States, commonly believe that if the police don't read you your Miranda warnings. However, the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona led to a singular holding that police must warn people of certain rights if they are in police custody and the police are interrogating them.

The reason behind Miranda is that people should be reminded that they have certain rights bestowed upon them by the U.S. Constitution and they can invoke those rights at anytime. Custody means that you are in effect not free to leave. A brief roadside detention has been ruled not to constitute a custodial situation. (see Berkemer v. McCarty 468 U.S. 420 (1984).) In other words, Miranda warnings are triggered when there is custodial interrogation.

In addition, the remedy for a violation of Miranda is that the statement is rendered inadmissible in court and any evidence obtained from the statement is inadmissible, unless the police can trace their discovery of that evidence to an independent source.

The case will not be tossed out just because the police did not read you your Miranda rights unless Miranda was triggered by a custodial interrogation situation and their case hinges upon evidence obtained as a result of your statement. This is not an uncommon situation, however, how Miranda works is not properly understood by many people outside the legal community. And for good reason, it is extremely confusing. Any case where the lack of Miranda warnings is a real issue, should be vigorously pursued by an knowledgeable Fresno criminal lawyer.

Continue reading "Fresno Arrests and the Reality of Miranda Warnings " »

I had a felony narcotics case set for preliminary hearing today in which I'd run a motion to suppress the discovery of the drugs on my client. The case was set in the main court house here in Fresno, California this morning. We had our motion filed and I spent some time before the case was called, discussing with the District Attorney our position on the case. In addition, the search involved a search by another officer who was not part of the Fresno Police Department; in addition the search was several years old by this time.

My client had discovered he had a warrant for his arrest when he was traveling out of state as a commercial truck driver. He hired me after he found out about the warrant. I put him back on calendar to get the Fresno arrest warrant recalled and set the matter for arraignment. We did the arraignment a month or so ago- by the way an arraignment, in case you didn't know is a fancy word for reading the charges and saying not guilty and setting the next court date.

Anyway, I looked through the police report and saw what was clearly an illegal search. I told my client we'd file the appropriate paperwork with the court and argue the motion that the search was unconstitutional as a violation of his fourteenth amendment against unlawful searches and seizures. A month later were back in court and just like that- case dismissed.

This case illustrates the importance of hiring a Fresno Criminal Attorney who can vigorously defend your case. The problem is, all too often, a lazy attorney would settle for telling his client to just plead to a drug program and then the case is over. A successful and aggressive Fresno Drug Crime Lawyer, however, will fight your case from beginning to end and make sure that a crappy case is tossed out when it should be tossed out.