San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

April 18, 2018

A California Criminal Defendant Who Handled His Own Defense Shows Why That’s Often Not a Good Idea

At a trial’s end, a defendant is either guilty or not guilty. Ultimately, there is no difference between a defendant who avoids a conviction because key evidence was thrown out due to an illegal search versus someone who is declared not guilty by a jury. Based on these things, one thing that is wise, when facing charges, is to retain a knowledgeable San Francisco criminal defense attorney who can do everything they can to protect your rights to the fullest extent of the law, whether those arguments are factual or legal/procedural.

One thing you should not do, however, is to fire an attorney who is making an intelligent and potentially successfully procedural argument on your behalf so that you can represent yourself and make an outlandish factual argument instead. This brings us to the case of Izell from San Rafael, as reported by sfgate.com. Izell was on trial for forcible rape. The alleged rape took place in the summer of 2017 at Bay Club Marin, where the accused man worked. The accuser was a woman who was an acquaintance of the accused and worked near the club.

In the beginning of the case, Izell had counsel. The accused’s attorney, upon reviewing all of the information, discovered a flaw in the prosecution’s case, which is what good criminal defense attorneys do. Originally, the alleged victim told law enforcement that Izell raped her on July 27. The state obtained a search warrant that allowed them to access certain surveillance video footage and some of Izell’s Snapchat messages, based on a search warrant that had the July 27 date on it. Later, though, the alleged victim declared that the rape happened on July 13, rather than July 27.

April 12, 2018

The Limits of Consent in a California DUI Case and How Those Limits May Entitle You to the Suppression of Test Results

by Uthman Law Office

When law enforcement pull you over on suspicion of drunk driving, there are certain things they can do and certain things they cannot do. There are certain rules, for example, regarding when they can take your blood or breath for analysis. Even once you consent, there are limits to how they can use the sample you provide. If law enforcement goes beyond those limits, you may be entitled to an order that suppresses certain evidence in your criminal trial. An experienced San Francisco DUI attorney can help you make sure that your rights are fully protected in your case.

A recent case from Southern California is an example of how these protections can help you. In 2016, law enforcement officers stopped a woman named Aubree. The officer arrested Aubree for driving under the influence of alcohol. After he made the stop, he gave the driver the required admonishment regarding breath testing and blood testing. Regarding the blood test option, he told the woman that two vials of blood would be drawn, that one would go to the county crime lab for testing, and that the second vial would be “held at no cost to you.” The officer also explained that there was no way “to retain any kind of a sample for retesting” with the breath test option. Aubree consented to a blood test.

What happened next may have surprised Aubree. The state charged her not with driving while drunk but with driving while under the combined influence of drugs and alcohol. The crime lab had determined that Aubree’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit, but the police later sent the second vial to an outside lab, which performed a drug screen, and that test yielded a positive result.

April 6, 2018

How Very Small Details Can Potentially Make a Very Big Difference in Your California Criminal Case

by Uthman Law Office

There can be a variety of ways to achieve a successful result in your criminal case. One way is to succeed based upon the facts: demonstrating that the factual proof within your case simply cannot support a conviction. Other times, you may be able to avoid, or obtain a reversal of, a conviction if you can show that the law will not allow for a conviction on the charge that the state alleged. In still other circumstances, you may be able to use a procedural misstep by the state to your benefit in your case. Sometimes, even seemingly small errors can have big consequences. To make sure that your rights are protected to the fullest extent of the law, be sure you have retained experienced San Francisco criminal defense counsel.

An example of the last of these things in the above list was on display in the case against Johnny from San Diego County. Johnny began dating Dulce in the summer of 2014. Some time later, he moved in with the woman and her family. At some point after that, the relationship became violent. On various occasions, Johnny assaulted both Dulce and her ex-boyfriend. From this series of alleged attacks, the state arrested Johnny and charged him with numerous offenses. Two of those charges were counts of “corporal injury to a cohabitant” in violation of Subsection 273.5(h)(1) of the Penal Code. Johnny was eventually convicted on all of the charges and sentenced to 22 years. The court arrived at that sentence through several sentencing enhancements, one of which was based upon the two 273.5(h)(1) offenses.

The man appealed and won a reduction of his sentence. The problem with the original sentencing process was that the charging document (called an “information”) stated that Johnny was being accused of violating Subsection 273.5(h)(1), but the sentencing enhancement that the state sought was the one connected to Subsection 273.5(f)(1).

March 27, 2018

What You Should Do (and What Not to Do) When you Receive a Speeding Ticket in California

by Uthman Law Office

Back in 2001, the BBC launched a television show entitled What Not to Wear. (An American version of the show ran on basic cable in the States from 2003-13.) The premises of both shows were roughly the same: two “fashion experts” helped one person fix the alleged sartorial flaws in her wardrobe. The theoretical benefit was that, by watching, viewers learned…what not to wear. Sometimes, court cases and news stories can serve a similar benefit when it comes to legal matters. By seeing or reading about the egregious errors others make, you can theoretically learn from their mistakes and know, in advance, what not to do when it comes to certain legal problems. As a basic tip for almost any vehicle-related encounter with law enforcement, one of the first things you should do is contact an experienced California traffic ticket lawyer.

A doctor’s encounter with law enforcement reported by KRCR in Redding provides one very clear “what not to do” scenario. In April 2013, the doctor was stopped by a CHP officer for doing 95 mph on Highway 99. Sometimes, drivers may hope to escape the encounter with a warning, and they may give the officer an “explanation” of their speeding in order to appear more sympathetic and hopefully increase their chances of avoiding a ticket.

What not to do in this situation is lie to the officer. The doctor on Highway 99, however, did exactly that. He told the officer he was en route to a medical emergency. The officer simply called the clinic to which the doctor claimed he was headed. The clinic stated that there was no emergency, and the doctor received his speeding ticket, according to the KRCR report.

March 20, 2018

How the Police’s Failure to Give You an Admonition Can Help You in Your California DMV Case

by Uthman Law Office

Each case can present its own unique elements. Part of what can go into achieving a successful result is spotting those unique elements and using them to your advantage. Perhaps the police officer who encountered you did not do a proper job giving you a required admonition. Perhaps the officer did not even give you the admonition at all. All of these things can potentially be used to your benefit. An experienced San Francisco DMV attorney can advise and represent you in using your case’s facts to get your driving privileges back.

A case from Santa Clara County offers an example of how this can work. Police responded to a midnight single-vehicle accident. Once there, they found a badly damaged Porsche SUV and a driver exiting the vehicle who appeared to be “extremely unsteady on his feet.” The driver allegedly smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech, and seemed disoriented. The officer attempted to conduct a field sobriety test that involved asking the driver to follow the tip of his pen with his eyes, but the driver simply closed his eyes.

There are many good reasons to, as a driver whom the police potentially suspect of driving under the influence, refuse to participate in a field sobriety test. One of these reasons is that officers do not always perform the tests properly. An improperly conducted test can yield incorrectly skewed results. Once you participate, the officer can testify in court about his or her impression of your performance on the test.

March 13, 2018

Immigrant’s 2001 California Misdemeanor Plea Deal Proves Harmful in Deportation Case

by Uthman Law Office

The outcome of a federal immigration case decided by the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati might not seem, at first blush, like something that would matter to someone in California. In one recent case, however, the outcome was highly relevant to people here, especially those who may have been accused of certain crimes. In the federal case, the man’s previous guilty plea on a misdemeanor domestic battery charge in state court directly harmed his efforts to avoid deportation. The case’s conclusion points out how wide-ranging an impact criminal convictions, especially those involving domestic violence, can have. It is yet another good reason to make sure you have skilled California criminal defense counsel to advise you about the consequences of any plea deal decision you might consider making.

The man facing deportation, Sofonias, entered California from Mexico as an undocumented immigrant in January 2001. Later that year, following an incident between Sofonias and his girlfriend, police arrested the man for domestic battery. Sofonias agreed to plead guilty to violating Section 273.5 of the California Penal Code. In exchange for this guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge, he received a sentence of probation and suspended court costs of $300.

Sofonias and his girlfriend patched things up, got married, moved to Michigan, and welcomed a son in 2007. The man, in fact, had worked at the same restaurant in Michigan for eight years, from 2005 until 2013, when his California conviction came back to haunt him. In November of that year, immigration officers arrested Sofonias. Federal authorities designated the man for deportation.

March 6, 2018

How the Fourth Amendment May Help You Keep a Warrantless Blood Test’s Results out of Your California DUI Case

by Uthman Law Office

The specific details of Fourth Amendment “search and seizure” law, as it relates to blood-alcohol content tests, has evolved significantly in the last few years. For a long time, law enforcement officers had a lot of latitude regarding the taking of blood from a suspected drunk driver, even without a search warrant. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that narrowed the leeway afforded to officers in obtaining blood draws from suspected drunk drivers. This change in the law provides more opportunity for DUI defendants to get the results of their blood tests excluded from evidence in their criminal cases. To make sure that you have the best defense possible, complete with the exclusion of all inadmissible evidence, make sure to work with an experienced San Francisco DUI attorney.An example of this change in the law, and how it can help DUI defendants, was the case of Samuel, a man arrested for suspicion of DUI in San Mateo County on June 13, 2015. A CHP officer stopped a black Honda and detected the odor of alcohol from inside the car. Samuel underwent four field sobriety tests. He did not do well. The officer did a preliminary alcohol screening. The PAS test results ranged between .144 and .177. The officer arrested Samuel and took him to a nearby CHP station. There, Samuel’s blood was drawn.

At his trial, Samuel argued that the results of his blood test should be excluded from evidence as a result of an improper warrantless seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Samuel eventually won this argument in the Appellate Division. The key to Samuel’s success was the issue of consent. There are a few ways that law enforcement can perform a search or seizure of you or your possessions. One is if there are special circumstances, which the law calls “exigent circumstances.” The other is if you give the officer permission to do the search or seizure.

In Samuel’s case, the prosecution didn’t argue that there were exigent circumstances; the prosecution simply argued that the seizure complied with the Fourth Amendment because Samuel consented. The problem was that the evidence didn’t support this assertion. Even the arresting officer eventually testified that Samuel didn’t explicitly consent to the blood draw. Samuel’s behavior, according to the officer, was more an act of his “submitting” to the blood draw, as opposed to his affirmatively selecting to undergo the blood test.

February 27, 2018

How a Lack of ‘Free and Voluntary’ Consent Can Help You Get Your Blood Test Results Thrown Out of Your California DUI Case

by Uthman Law Office

In your DUI case sometimes, the seemingly smallest details can make the biggest differences. A police officer’s failure to provide you with proper information about your options prior to taking a blood alcohol test can possibly give you the opportunity to have that test’s results excluded from your trial. To make sure that you take advantage of all of the protections the law provides you as a criminal defendant, make sure that you are working with an experienced San Francisco DUI attorney.

A recent case from Santa Clara County offers an example of how these legal protections can work for you. The facts of the case started out as many suspicion-of-drunk-driving encounters with law enforcement probably do. A local police office initiated a traffic stop at around 10 p.m. after spotting a vehicle turn the wrong way down a one-way street in downtown Campbell. During his interaction with the driver, the officer smelled what he thought was alcohol on the driver’s breath, and he identified what he thought to be slurred speech and bloodshot, watery eyes. The driver, Rebecca, said that she had consumed one or two margaritas at a nearby restaurant.

The officer administered three field sobriety tests to Rebecca. It is important to note that, under California law, you are not required to submit to field sobriety tests; you may legally refuse to do them. Refusing to submit to a field sobriety test may motivate the officer who pulled you over to arrest you, but then, so will submitting to them and failing them, which is what Rebecca did.

February 23, 2018

New Traffic School for Bicyclists Opens in California

by Uthman Law Office

If you are ticketed for a traffic offense while operating your motor vehicle, you likely understand that you have certain options. You can pay the fine, you can go to court and contest the matter, or you may be able to get your citation expunged and your fines dropped if you complete an approved driving school program within the allowed period of time. Recently, a new statute has allowed for the creation of traffic schools for bicyclists, meaning that, if you are cited while operating your bike, you may have all of the same options as vehicle drivers. If you have received a citation, before you make a decision regarding how to resolve it, talk to a knowledgeable California traffic ticket attorney, who understands the process and can advise you on your options and what might work best for your situation.

In 2016, Assembly Bill 902 became law, allowing cities to create traffic schools for bicyclists. The bill, created by a Santa Monica assemblyman, represents the first time that bicycle traffic schools have been allowed under California law. Recently, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported on the one of the newest additions to the group of available bicycle traffic schools. That school is based in El Monte in Los Angeles County.

The El Monte-based bicycle traffic school is one of the first in the state. Two of the state’s major universities, UC Berkeley and UC Davis, have established diversion programs for bicyclists, according to the Tribune. Despite bicycle advocates’ efforts, several Northern California cities, like Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda, have not yet elected to create bicycle traffic schools, according to the report. Because of the wording of AB902, the decision regarding whether or not to create a bicycle traffic school is made independently by each city.

February 16, 2018

The Risks You Take When You Handle Your DMV Driver’s License Suspension Case On Your Own Without a San Francisco Attorney

by Uthman Law Office

There are many things that can derail your legal case. Your case may be unsuccessful because you don’t have enough factual evidence on your side. Your case could also be unsuccessful because of procedural deficiencies. One of the most preventable ways to fail is because you decide to handle your case yourself, and you make procedural errors that you could have avoided with representation from an experienced California DMV attorney. Achieving a successful result in your license suspension case, or any type of legal matter, involves more than just knowing the facts of your case and being able to present them. It involves having a familiarity with the procedural rules of your case and making sure that you follow them.

The case of one East Bay driver serves as a useful story of caution on this point. The case began when a local police officer in Antioch responded to the scene of a two-vehicle accident and identified what he believed was alcohol on the breath of one of the drivers. The officer also thought that that driver’s eyes appeared bloodshot and watery. The driver, Michael, told the officer that he’d last had alcohol more than five hours before the accident, when he’d had two drinks with vodka in them. He indicated to the officer that he’d been awake for 21 hours.

Michael underwent a blood test some 2½ hours after the accident. The test yielded a BAC of 0.08. The DMV suspended his license. After Michael elected to have an administrative hearing, the hearing officer upheld the suspension. The driver took his case to the trial court but was still unsuccessful. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, but once again the suspension was upheld. Significant parts of what plagued Michael’s case on appeal came down to procedural problems, which can be a common shortcoming when people decide to handle their own cases without legal counsel.