Sep/100
DUII Lawyers – Unlawful Or Lawful Arrest Dmv Finding After California Dui?
Unlawful Or Lawful Arrest Dmv Finding After California Dui?
UNLAWFUL ARREST
Though not expressly stated in VC ǧ13353(c)(2) or 13557(b)(2)(B), other statutes and case authority establish that what is actually required in a DMV administrative per se hearing as a result of a California DUI arrest is proof that the person was “lawfully” arrested.
(See, VC §23612(a); Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 C3d 753, 280 CR 745; Gikas v. Zolin (1993) 6 C4th 841, 25 CR2d 500; and Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 C4th 448, 65 CR2d 860.)
A. What Constitutes an Arrest?
An officer’s use of “magic words” is not the sole basis for determining whether an arrest has occurred—the trier of fact must look to the essential elements of custody, Ormonde v. DMV (1981) 117 CA3d 889, 173 CR 79, and distinguish between a temporary detention and a formal arrest. (See People v. Freund (1975) 48 CA3d 49, 119 CR 762 – defendants arrested when they were placed in the back of a patrol car while police obtained a search warrant, even though officer said arrest took place after the search). Where an arrest does take place, the timing of it is determined by looking to the essential elements of taking the arrestee into custody and actual restraint or submission to custody. (See, People v. Parker (1978) 85 CA3d 439, 443 and Green v. DMV (1977) 68 CA3d 536.)
B. Penal Code §836
Application of PC §836 to drunk driving cases nearly always involves a question of whether or not the defendant’s activities witnessed by the arresting officer (or other appropriate person) amounted to the act of “driving” as it is defined for these purposes.
As for what acts constitute “driving,” the California Supreme Court cleared up a lot of confusion with the decision in Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 C3d 753, 280 CR 745, holding that proof of “driving,” in the presence of the arresting officer, requires proof that the arresting officer witnessed volitional movement of the vehicle by the defendant. Thus, the Supreme Court held that if the vehicle isn’t observed moving, i.e., rolling, then it isn’t being driven. Sister state statutes generally prohibit “driving” or “operating” a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and some prohibit both (e.g., Florida). In order to operate a motor vehicle one does not have to actually move the car. California, however, has a “driving” only statute, and as Mercer p
1000
oints out, this requires actual movement of the vehicle.
C. Circumstantial Evidence of Driving—Arrest Illegal
Arrest Illegal: The continuing validity of several presence-by-circumstantial-evidence decisions is in doubt in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mercer, wherein the court said:
Because Penal Code section 836, subdivision 1, provides that a warrantless misdemeanor arrest is permissible only if a public offense occurs in the arresting officer’s “presence,” and because the officer in this case did not see Mercer’s vehicle move, we conclude Mercer was not “lawfully arrested” for a violation of section 23152(a) and thus cannot be subjected to the license revocation provisions of sections 23157 and 13353 as presently written.
In Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 C3d 753, 280 CR 745, the court said:
We emphasize at the outset the narrow scope of our inquiry and holding. We do not hold that observed movement of a vehicle is necessary to support a conviction for “drunk driving” under §23152. The lower courts have routinely upheld such convictions in the absence of evidence of observed movement of a vehicle. [Citation.] Nothing in this opinion calls in question the holdings of these cases.
Presumably, this situation (no presence at offense but charges filed anyway) might come about where no one was present for the offense and the respondent was arrested later on a warrant.
D. Cops and Private Citizens
Freeman v. DMV (1969) 70 C2d 235, 74 CR 259, also made it clear that a misdemeanor arrest is legal under PC. §836, so long as the offense occurred in the presence of someone, even a private citizen, and so long as that person either makes a citizen’s arrest, or tries to, or detains the offender until police arrive. The private citizen has to do more than just call the police and hang around to tell them what happened. The Freeman Court said, at page 238:
In People v. Sjosten, 262 CA2d 539, 68 CR 832 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1968), rev. den., a citizen observed the defendant prowling in the night time and called the police, who thereupon arrested the defendant. After holding that the citizen had the right to make an arrest under §837, subdivision 1, of the Penal Code, [footnote quoting language of section] the Court held that the arrest made by the officer was valid,
stating at page 544:
As to the delegation of her authority to another person, §839 of the Penal Code provides: “Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.” This statute impliedly authorizes the delegation of the physical act of taking an offender into custody.
In People v. Harris, (1967) 256 CA2d 455, 63 CR 849, a citizen, who had observed the defendant commit a misdemeanor “hit-run” violation, pursued the defendant and detained him while another person went for the police. After the defendant was delivered to a police officer, the latter informed him that he was under arrest for the “hit-run” violation. In discussing the effect of the police officer’s assuming custody of the defendant after his detention by the citizen, the Court of Appeal stated: “An arrest is more than a transient momentary incident. It continues through a transfer of custody of the accused from a citizen to a peace officer.” (Harris, at p. 459-460.)
Similarly, the arrest made by CHP officer __________ in this case was a “transient momentary incident,” which, evidently, had its beginning in the action taken by the officer when he received some dispatch call regarding a certain driver. In other words, the initial detention and subsequent arrest by officer ___________ was based upon nothing other than some dispatch call to the officer.
Likewise, in People v. Walker, 203 CA2d 552, 21 CR 692, the arresting officer gave the defendant some sobriety tests and concluded he was under the influence of alcohol. The officer had not seen the defendant commit the alleged offen
1000
se of drunk driving, and the arrest was therefore determined to be unlawful. Other persons at the scene told the officer that the defendant’s car had been weaving from one side of the road to the other before it collided with a parked car and came to a stop; but it does not appear that anyone had sought to make a citizen’s arrest or detain the offender until the police arrived or, as occurred in the present case, that another officer had witnessed the
offender’s actions and “stopped” him. In direct response to the holding in Freeman, police frequently have the citizen request the arrest, and do so in writing.
In Padilla v. Meese (1986) 184 CA3d 1022, 229 CR 310, an implied consent hearing case, an agricultural inspection station attendant made a legal citizen’s arrest for drunk driving in his presence. The police officer merely took the defendant into custody for him. In Johanson v. DMV (1995) 36 CA4th 1209, 43 CR2d 42, a citizen’s drunk driving arrest was found legal even though the citizen hadn’t explicitly stated that the arrest was for drunk driving. In People v. Campbell (1972) 27 CA3d 849, 104 CR 118, the Court said:
A private person may arrest another for “a public offense committed or attempted in his presence” (Pen. C. §837). The term “public offense”
includes misdemeanors (Pen. C. ǧ15 and 17; Burks v. U.S., 287 F.2d 117; People v. Sjosten , 262 Cal.App.2d 539, 543, 68 Cal.Rptr. 832) and
the person making the arrest may summon others to aid him in the arrest (Pen. C. §839). Although there was evidence that Greenwood himself took defendant into custody, Greenwood also had the right to delegate “the physical act of taking an offender into custody” to the other persons summoned, Officer Johnson and Mr. Frazier (People v. Sjosten, supra, p. 544; People v. Wolfgang, (1923) 192 Cal. 754, 221 P. 907).
Nor under the circumstances of immediate pursuit was Greenwood required to tell defendant that he was under arrest (Pen. C. §841; People v. Harris, 256 Cal.App.2d 455, 459, 63 Cal.Rptr. 849 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1967)). We conclude that defendant was legally arrested by Greenwood with the aid of Officers Johnson and Frazier.
E. Admission of Driving Doesn’t Create Presence
Although there is no admission here, the defendant’s admission of driving is no more relevant to whether or not the offense was committed in the presence of the arresting officer than was his alleged “subjective failure” of the field sobriety tests. Hence, the “driving in the presence” requirement cannot have been accomplished here as is specifically and statutorily required by PC §836. Conversely, however, is the fact that a respondent’s admission can establish the fact that an accident occurred, which constitutes a statutory exception to the presence requirement (See, Corrigan v. Zolin (1996) 47 CA4th 230, 54 CR2d 634 and VC §40300.5(a)).
F. No Vehicle Code Exception To Officer’s Presence Is Applicable
The only exceptions to the “presence” requirement under PC §836 for a DUI arrest are found in VC §40300.5, of which none are applicable to the case at bar. VC §40300.5 states as follows:
40300.5. In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a
warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836 of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:
(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.
(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway.
(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested.
(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested.
(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediatel
1000
y arrested.
Thus, for example, where a peace officer (having probable cause) could arrest a person for misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs not committed in the officer's presence where evidence could be destroyed unless the person was immediately arrested, VC §40300.5(e) created an exception to the presence requirement of PC §836, because evidence could be destroyed by the simple passage of time unless the person was immediately arrested. However, this did not authorize a peace officer to forcibly enter a residence to effect such an arrest. [See, People v. Schofield (2001) 90 CA4th 968, 109 CR2d 429.]
Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com
DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only San Diego DUI lawyer who was the featured Speaker at 7 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last several years. Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru", and has practiced law since 1983.
Most people don't realize that it is quite possible to be charged with DUI for being under the influence of prescription drugs. While many medications advise not to drive after taking them, it can be difficult to avoid driving while medicated if these types of prescriptions are taken on a regular basis. Even a trace amount of the medication remaining in your system may be enough for you to be charged with DUI, which stands for Driving Under the Influence.
Even though you may have had nothing to drink and can pass a breathalyzer test with no problem, ultimately, DUI charges are rendered at the officer's discretion. Thus, if you pass the breathalyzer but fail the field sobriety test, the officer may still place you in custody and draw blood if he believes your driving has been affected by something other than alcohol.
It is also possible for your medications to interact, causing a reaction you may not have expected. It is important to read the label on all your medications carefully. The last thing you want is to realize that you're feeling disoriented and that you may be having an adverse reaction to mixed medications just as the officer's lights fill your rearview mirror.
Regardless of how your DUI charges occurred, the penalties you will face are the same. Being charged with DUI can mean you will face imprisonment, fines and court costs, be forced to attend counseling and treatment for substance abuse, lose your driver's license, have an ignition interlock device placed on your vehicle, and be placed on probation after your release from jail. All of these consequences can have serious impacts on your life. The high costs of a DUI, the time it takes away from work and family, and the damage to your reputation make such charges very serious.
In order to successfully defend yourself once charged with DUI, you need to obtain experienced legal counsel. An attorney experienced in DUI law will be able to explain the potential outcomes to you and consult with you about your particular situation to arrive at the most effective strategy for your defense. An attorney may be able to get the charges dismissed for lack of probable cause, obtain a plea bargain for a reduced sentence which will keep you our of jail, or work with the prosecutor to explain any extenuating circumstances involved. DUI lawyers in Phoenix can help you understand the harsh penalties in Arizona. It is imperative you hire a DUI lawyer in Arizona to defend your rights.
For more information on DUI lawyer Phoenix, visit DUI lawyer Arizona online. You can connect with experienced, skilled DUI legal professionals in the Arizona area.
Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Courtney_Frazier
In a city like New York, the accidents are always prone to occur. With all the hustling and the bustling of the construction sites, huge amount of the rushing people and the crowded streets, the city is always bound for ending as the breeding ground of the accidents. The law named personal injury states that any of the damage or the wrong done to the other person’s reputation, rights or the property, such types of the injuries are brought up in the car accident, medical treatment, faulty repair, workplace and also if the person fall or slip down because of the wet floor. It is the duty of accident lawyer New York to make people aware of the laws that entitles the victims of personal injury to claim their compensations rightfully.
The personal injury involves the physical as well as the psychological damages. But, by hiring the services of the Accident Lawyer New York, the personal injuries which are caused due to the unsafe conditions or the negligence that a person’s manufacturer, doctor, landlord, employer, institution or any other person has inflicted, can be handled in a proper manner with compensation.
It is very common that the people who are the victims of the personal injury are generally not offered any justice or help and hence, they go unnoticed. The people living in the New York are having the right for feeling safe in their own city. If this right is being denied, then it is very important for you to contact the Accident Lawyer New York.
There are many people who unknowingly pass the great opportunity for receiving the generous amounts of the financial compensation, if they are subjected to any of the personal injury. The Accident Lawyer New York will help in ensuring you whether all the legal technicalities are being properly taken care of. This is basically done so that you may receive the entire amount of the reparation.
Some of the accidents results in various permanent damages to a person’s health, appearance and the physical abilities, and in such cases the Accident Lawyer New York is very helpful in figuring what a person should be entitled to. The attorneys make their business and the obligation for guarantying the person’s right for remaining healthy and safe and deal the case accordingly. A person should contact the lawyer immediately in case if he has suffered because of the negligence of another person. It is very important that one should not allow such types of the serious injuries going unnoticed.
With the increasing number of the accidents in the New York, there are number of Accident Lawyer New York who are available. These lawyers will help the sufferer for receiving the compensation from the person who is responsible for the negligence. Most importantly, these lawyers know what should be said in the courts for obtaining the justice. All the evidences against the person can be provided to the court in a very precise manner.
About The Author
George Turner gives advice to clients who are looking for attorneys to handle injury related cases. To know more about the services of car crash lawyer, car crash case, car crash legal firm, auto accident lawyer, auto accident lawyers, auto accident attorney, auto accident attorneys visit www.nbrlawfirm.com
Mail this post