The United States Constitution contains a Confrontation Clause which generally allows a defendant to cross-examine anyone who testifies in a trial. The Justices in this matter, Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011), ruled it was improper for the trial court to introduce a forensic laboratory report made for the purpose of proving a blood alcohol concentration level through the testimony of a scientist who (1) did not sign the certification or (2) did not either conduct the test or observe the conducting of the test reported in the certification. This decision has corrected a great unfairness noted as noted by a Santa Rosa DUI lawyer.

Justice Ginsburg explained that no one other than the person who actually conducted or observed the test can convey what the analyst knew or observed about the events which were ultimately certified or which particular test or testing process was used. Allowing someone to testify who did not observe the test or conduct the test prevents a defendant from exposing any lapses or untruths on the part of the person who actually conducted the test.

The Court basically decided that the Sixth Amendment does not allow courts to develop an open-ended exception to the Confrontation Clause. Questioning one witness about another witnesses’ activity does not provide a fair opportunity for cross-examination. Cross-examination must be conducted with the person who actually conducted or observed the test. Previously, a Santa Rosa DUI attorney, a Napa DUI attorney or a Marin DUI attorney did not have the right to require that the test result be introduced only through the analyst who actually conducted the test.

When the district attorney attempts to produce an analyst’s certification, the analyst then becomes a witness that the defendant has a right to cross-examine. The argument that the test report in this matter was non-testimonial was rejected. A police officer provided evidence that was seized from the defendant and forwarded to a state laboratory for a blood alcohol analysis. The Court ruled that the formalities that were a part and parcel of the analysis report were more than adequate to qualify it as testimonial. Thus, the evidence was suppressed or thrown out of court because the defendant was deprived of his/her right of cross-examination.

In short, at the current time in California, if the district attorney wants to introduce into evidence a report from a laboratory regarding a blood alcohol concentration, they must do so through the testimony of an analyst who either conducted the test or observed the conducting of the test so that person can be cross-examined by the defense. No longer can the test be introduced into evidence through the testimony of a supervisor who did not either observe the test or conduct the test.

A Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney, a San Rafael criminal defense attorney, and a Napa criminal defense attorney welcome this decision.

For further information regarding DUI matters, click here.

Late at night or in the wee hours of the morning, the incidents of police stopping motorists for minor traffic or equipment violations dramatically increases. This is primarily due to the fact that police are legally authorized to stop a vehicle even though their concern and motivation is to uncover other crimes such as a DUI, weapons, drugs, etc.

As noted by a Santa Rosa criminal lawyer, one of the most common technical violations used during these hours is failure to use an appropriate turning signal pursuant to Vehicle Code §22107. Vehicle Code §22108 specifies the required duration of a turn signal and, in the case of People v. Carmona (2011) the Court of Appeals decided that these two statutes must be read together so that when somebody is required to give a turn signal, the turn signal must be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. However, Vehicle Code §22107 only requires the use of an appropriate signal in the event that there is another vehicle which is effected by the movement. The Court ruled that a stop of a vehicle by police that turns without signaling is not justified by a “reasonable suspicion” if it is readily apparent that no other vehicle was being effected by the turning vehicle’s movement.

In this particular Carmona case, there was no other vehicle in the area except the defendant’s vehicle and the police cruiser. The officer was actually traveling in the opposite direction and therefore could not have been effected by the defendant’s right-hand turn without a signal. As a result, there was no violation which justified the police stopping the vehicle and, as a result, all of the evidence discovered from the illegal stop was suppressed and thrown out of court. A Napa criminal attorney, a San Rafael criminal attorney, and a Santa Rosa criminal attorney will welcome this Court’s decision.

For further information, click here.

A new drug detection product developed in England by Intelligent Fingerprinting has extended exclusive distribution rights to Smart Start, Inc., a leading provider of ignition interlock devices. A Santa Rosa DUI attorney has indicated that this hand-held device detects drug metabolites and other substances found in fingerprints to enable the operator to determine what drugs an individual may have consumed. For further information regarding DUI cases, click here. These companies tout the ease of collection and the lack of special handling as advantages for this process. It is expected that the device will be used not only in places of employment but also by police officers on patrol.

Intelligent Fingerprinting Ltd. has announced that the technology allows an operator to determine whether an individual has used drugs from analyzing extremely small amounts of sweat deposited from a set of fingerprints. The analysis will show the presence of drug(s) in the body. Technically, the device will determine the products of an individual’s metabolism, referred to as metabolites, but not specifically the drug. Theoretically, this will provide direct evidence that an individual has consumed drugs and not simply come in contact with a surface that may have been contaminated with a drug. Sonoma County criminal defense attorneys, San Rafael criminal defense attorneys and Napa criminal defense attorneys are somewhat skeptical of this type of roadside technology.

Clearly, further testing needs to be done to determine the accuracy of this type of new equipment and a determination made as to the equipment’s capacity for generating false positive identifications of drugs. Issues involving identification, accuracy, verification, calibration, etc. remain in the minds of Santa Rosa criminal defense attorneys, San Rafael criminal defense attorneys and Napa criminal defense attorneys.

For further information regarding DUI cases, click here.

Confirmation of the requirements needed by a police officer to justify stopping a vehicle have, according to a Santa Rosa criminal defense lawyer, been confirmed. The 6^th Appellate District (Counties of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito) has recently ruled that stopping a vehicle is not justified if (1) it is only based on the fact that the defendant has a rear license plate but no front license plate (2) if the license plate is from another state and the police officer had no other information that there was anything wrong with the car’s registration. This decision is in compliance with a number of Federal Circuit Court decisions.

These decisions, in favor of the defendant, are in conflict with the 1^st Appellate District (Counties of San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Nortre, Contra Costa, Alameda and San Mateo) and the 8^th Circuit. The importance of different courts ruling in different ways can be clarified by a Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney, a Napa criminal defense attorney and a Marin criminal defense attorney.

This court basically requires a police officer to have an objectively reasonable suspicion that the driver has broken the law. In California, two plates are required to be on a vehicle when two are issued by DMV. In many other states, however, only one license plate is issued. If the police officer does not know the law in another state, he/she does not have a reasonably objective suspicion that the driver has broken the law because the police officer does not know what the law is in that state.

In the case of In Teresinski, (1982), the California Supreme Court also did not excuse a police officer’s mistake in this regard and did not consider his mistake a sufficient excuse to stop a vehicle. The 9^th Circuit Federal Court (San Francisco) has also held that a pure mistake of law cannot provide a police officer with an objectively reasonable suspicion. These decisions will make it easier for a Santa Rosa criminal lawyer, a Napa criminal lawyer and a Marin criminal lawyer to defend cases in which their clients have been stopped.

When a police officer observes a vehicle with only one out of state license plate attached to the rear of the car, the officer simply needs to know whether or not the sister state issues one or two plates. If the officer does not know the answer, the officer is not authorized to stop the vehicle and therefore, any contraband, i.e., drugs, guns, etc. will be suppressed and incapable of being introduced into evidence at a trial. In summary, it would be fundamentally unfair to require citizens to adhere to the axiom “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” but allow police officers, who we hire to enforce the law, to get away with being ignorant of the law. All the evidence in this particular case was suppressed and thrown out of court.

For further information, click here.