Monder Law Group - News

DUI – Overview: Why is CA so strict on DUI?

It has been repeatedly observed that drunk driving is a sever hazard to public safety. Take, for example, this statement issued by the California Supreme Court:

The drunk driver cuts a wide swath of death, pain, grief, and untold physical and emotional injury across the roads of California and the nation. The monstrous proportions of the problem have often been lamented in graphic terms by this court and the United States Supreme Court. In fact, from 1975-1980 there were many more injuries to California residents in alcohol-related traffic accidents than were suffered by the entire Union Army during the Civil War. Given this, our observation that drunken drivers are extremely dangerous people seems almost to understate the horrific risk posed by those who drink and drive.

It is following this analysis that California Legislature has enacted several strict laws outlawing and punishing driving under the influence. Understanding the dire perils presented by the drunken driver is essential because appellate courts construing these provision have also sought to maximize the scope and application of the DUI laws. For example, the following is illegal while driving in the state of California:

• Drivers under 21 with unsealed alcohol (while driving alone)
• Drivers under 21 with a BAC (blood alcohol concentration of 0.01 or higher
• Drivers under 21 consuming alcohol in any form (including high dosage of cough syrup or prescription drugs)
• Any driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher
• A driver of a commercial vehicle driving with a BAC of 0.04 or higher
• A driver under 18 driving with ANY measurable BAC
• Repeat offenders with a BAC of .01 or higher

California is strict when it comes to drunk driving laws, especially for offenders under 21 years of age and repeat offenders. It is important to note there is a no tolerance law for drivers less than 18 years of age.

This blog will, in a series of posts: discuss the statutes that define drunk driving in California, go over various definitions for the involved offenses, provide an overview of the possible penalties, list potential defenses. Basically, by the end of it, you will know more than you ever imagined about DUI charges in California.

Monder Law Group - News

Out of State Conviction Being Used to Enhance Your San Diego Criminal Exposure

Many times the prosecution will say that a case is priorable and will enhance your criminal exposure if you proceed to trial; however, this is not always the case and it is just a way to prevent you from moving forward. In a more serious felony matter, you must always consider:

1. Whether an out of state conviction is eligible under the three strikes law
2. Difference in definition of crimes between states; and
3. Any remedy of not being told prior crime could be used against them

As for the first prong, an out of state conviction is eligible for sentencing in California if committed in California, it would be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison and includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined in section 1192.7 [subdivision] (c). People v. Warner (2006) 39 Cal.4th 548, 552–553, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 139 P.3d 475; People v. Sample (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1261 [133 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 427]. For example, burglary committed in the first degree in California is eligible to be a strike. However, it is not a strike if committed in another state where the particular felony does not include all the same elements as the strike offense in California. This may be a bit confusing but will be discussed further in the next prong.

As for the second prong, if the definition of the crime from out of state conviction is not substantially the same to the crime that qualifies under the three-strikes law here in California, then essentially it cannot be used against you as a strike in California.

To qualify as a prior conviction under the three strikes law, a conviction in another state must meet all the elements as specified in a felony under Penal Code Section 1170.12 [subdivision] (b)(2). The record of conviction will provide all conduct that satisfies all the elements of the California serious offense. This means the court will only consider the change of plea and the penal code section you plead to in the foreign jurisdiction to determine whether it meets the California serious offense.

For example a change of plea for burglary under Texas Statute Section 30.02 requires a person to commit this offense without consent of owner if:

1. Person enters habitation, or a building not open to the public with intent to commit felony, theft, or an assault; or

In California, burglary in the first degree is a strike offense under California Penal Code Section 459 and requires a person to commit this offense if:

1. Defendant entered building and when he entered building intended to commit theft or felony inside.

The difference between these two statutes is a minor detail but a very important one that can make the difference of spending many years of your life in prison. What prevents the Texas Statute Section 30.02 from being considered a specified felony under California Penal Code Section 1170.12 [subdivision] (b)(2) is the difference in the definition of theft in both states.

In Texas, having committed burglary can be either in the first degree or second degree. Committing a burglary in a building other than a habitation is a state jail felony. Furthermore, felony is in the second degree if committed in a habitation. In Texas, burglary in the second degree is less serious than if committed in the first degree. The offense of burglary in a habitation can be committed in the first degree if person entered habitation with intent to commit felony other than theft.

A theft offense is defined under Texas Statute Section 31.03 and requires a person commit an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of the property. To ‘appropriate’ under Texas Statute Section 31.01(4) means to: “(a) to bring about a transfer or purported transfer of title to or other non-possessory interest in property, whether to the actor or another; or (b) to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than real property.” To ‘deprive’ under Texas Statute Section 31.01(2) means to: “(a) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; or (b) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or (c) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.”

In California, ‘theft’ for purposes of a burglary offense, requires the intent to permanently deprive a person of property. (See People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 693 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 489, 968 P.2d 48] [“[t]heft requires an element-the specific intent to permanently deprive a person of property” (italics omitted)].)

The court concluded in People v. Marquez that “[t]he intent to acquire, or deprive an owner of, ‘the major portion of the economic value or benefit’ of his or her property is not equivalent to the intent to ‘permanently’ deprive an owner of his or her property. (People v. Marquez, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 123, italics omitted.) A person who intends only to temporarily deprive an owner of property, albeit while acquiring or depriving the owner of the main value of the property, does not intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property and therefore does not have the intent to commit theft in California.

Even though such intent would constitute the intent to commit the crime of theft under Texas law but never under any circumstances can this be construed under California law especially for the purposes of designating the offense as a serious felony under Penal Code Section 1192.7 [subdivision] (c)(18).

Lastly, the defendant must be told that the conviction could be used against him in the future. We must look at the record of conviction or change of plea to see if this case can be brought up again against the defendant in the future. If the case has no collateral consequences such as when a guilty plea can be withdrawn and the case is dismissed at a later date, then it is less likely the defendant would be told that the conviction could be used against them in the future.

In California, when the court accepts a guilty plea, the court must inform the defendant of direct consequences of a guilty plea. Torrey v. Estelle, 842 F.2d 234, 235 (9th Cir.1988). “The distinction between a direct and collateral consequence of a plea turns on whether the result represents a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant’s punishment.” Id. at 236. In the Ninth Circuit, the possibility that a defendant will be convicted of another offense in the future and receive an enhanced sentence based on the current conviction is not a direct consequence of a guilty plea. United States v. Brownlie, 915 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir.1990) (rejecting defendant’s challenge to voluntariness of guilty plea). Because the state courts in Petitioner’s previous cases had no obligation to inform Petitioner of possible enhancements based on future convictions, the trial court in Petitioner’s current case was free to use the prior convictions to enhance Petitioner’s current sentence without violating any term of the plea agreements upon which the prior convictions were based. See Torrey, 842 F.2d at 235; Brownlie, 915 F.2d at 528.

Ultimately, if there was a dismissal or diversion offer where there does not exist any commitment to any facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from a state prison, then it is unlikely that the defendant would ever be made aware that the prior out of state conviction would be used against them especially as a strike in a San Diego criminal case.

If you have any questions feel free to contact, San Diego Attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

An Out of State DUI Being Used Against You In Your San Diego DUI Case

The most important thing to know if any prior criminal conduct from out of state can be used against you here in California is that there must be a conviction and each element from the crime you were convicted of must match elements of the same California criminal code section definition. If the out of state conviction does not contain all the necessary elements to meet the California criminal code definition, then the court can look at the underlying conduct from the record of conviction to see if it qualifies as a crime in California. People v. Crane (2006) 142 Cal.App.4^th 425, 433. The record of conviction is only the charges, change of plea form, and the abstract of judgment. If a crime can be committed in multiple ways then the court can only look at the least culpable way to commit an offense in an out of state conviction. People v. Garcia (1989) 216 Cal. App.3d 233. The court cannot take into account the police reports or witness statements in determining the record of conviction. If it cannot be determined how the offense was committed and it is not disclosed in the record of conviction, then the California court must presume the least serious form of the offense. People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4^th 1059, 1066 see also People v. Self (2012) 204 Cal.App.4^th 1054.

For example, a Florida conviction for DUI is not the same as a DUI in California because in Florida the DUI statute is different than the one in California. In California the DUI statute is limited to driving only while Florida can be control of the vehicle and does not necessarily require driving. This is the kind of information that is necessary to determine whether the court can enhance your charges here in San Diego based on an out of state prior conviction. These two statutes from two separate states are not substantially similar to require an enhancement in your California criminal case. There are many other states where the legislation incorporates control of the vehicle instead of actual driving. You should contact an experienced San Diego Criminal and DUI defense attorney to determine whether your out of state conviction can be used against you. 

If your out of state prior conviction is admitted against you then you should always ask for a bifurcated bench trial on the prior so that the jury will not hear instances of prior misconduct when determining the outcome of the case in San Diego.  

If you have any questions about an out of state prior being used in your criminal case contact San Diego Criminal Attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney

Monder Law Group - News

How to find your BAC in a San Diego DUI

A forensic toxicologist is the only one that will be able to predict your Blood Alcohol Concentration (“BAC”) in a fair manner. It is important to hire a licensed California toxicologist if you plan on taking your DUI to trial because you believe the BAC calculation may not be accurate. The BAC is calculated in a manner based on the amount of alcohol in person’s body. This simply means calculating the weight of the alcohol in a person’s blood. This is extremely technical but it can be calculated correctly.

Why is BAC calculated for criminal court?

BAC is used in court to determine how much alcohol a person has consumed during a specific period of time. A forensic toxicologist is used to show the court how this number is calculated and provide information to a judge and jury about how much alcohol was in the person’s blood at the moment they were pulled over by an officer.

What is the DUI law in San Diego?

In the state of California and in the county of San Diego, a person is legally drunk when they have a BAC of .08% or higher. This means eight one hundredth of a person’s blood is alcohol. This is the jigsaw puzzle for the prosecution to figure out the formula for the jury to believe this statement to be true based on the prediction of alcohol levels after alcohol is consumed.

What is the formula experts use to predict alcohol levels?

The forensic toxicologist in your case will estimate alcohol levels using the Widmark Calculations. This means that they need to collect raw data from the DUI arrest to make this calculation. The most important is the particular time from the point of driving to the time the chemical test completed. There is a 3-hour presumption under Title 17 that the police have a window to conduct a chemical test from the point they see you driving. The Widmark Calculation is used to determine the maximum amount of blood alcohol consumed by a person in one hour over a specific period of time. Without getting too technical we are trying to determine the minimum amount someone would have consumed to reach a certain BAC value over a period of time.

Why is the Widmark Calculation important?

The Widmark Calculation is important in calculating the BAC of someone and taking into account that person’s weight, gender, and other factors that will not typically come up in front of a jury without discussing the formula used to determine BAC in a DUI case.

If you want to know the amount of alcohol in your blood over an hour period, feel free to contact us to get your DUI case reviewed by one of our forensic toxicologist. At Monder Law we have a team of skilled experts in the area of DUI and criminal defense. You will learn about absorption rate because it provides a platform to predict the accuracy of your alcohol levels in your DUI case. It is important to know how much you would need to drink given your age, weight, metabolism, food intake and gender to actually be at a BAC of a .08% or higher.

How fast does alcohol absorb in the blood stream?
Alcohol is fully absorbed into the blood stream within 30 minutes to 2 hours after it is consumed. This occurs based on the metabolism of about .25 ounces of alcohol per hour. However, absorption all depends on a variety of factors. Most important is a persons size, weight, and how fast beverages are consumed.

If you have any questions about the DUI process, feel free to contact San Diego Attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

The Field Sobriety Test in a San Diego DUI

The court has adopted the regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in establishing the field sobriety testing methods. Any departure from this standardized measure developed by NTSTA is a deviation from the courts interpretation of the required procedures that will always result in compromised test results. There are only three tests that are considered standardized by NTSTA that will show a high probability of impaired driving if performed correctly. They are as follows:

What is the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test?

The horizontal gaze nystagmus test is typically the first sobriety test conducted in a DUI stop. The goal is to make sure all 25 steps are performed correctly when the officer is counting the clues while waiving the stimulus 12 inches away and asking you to follow the stimulus with your eyes without moving your head. The NHTSA manual states the test must be administered with precision or the results are unreliable. This means following your eyes and counting the correct amount of clues for unsteady gate, nystagmus at 45 degrees and at maximum deviation.

There is no study that claims the horizontal gaze nystagmus exam on its own can determine whether a person is under the influence of alcohol or what their blood alcohol level is. Horizontal nystagmus is not only result from alcohol intoxication. Other reasons for horizontal nystagmus is medical or caffeine and should be addressed to your attorney who is fighting the intoxication claims against you.

What is the walk the line test?

The walk the line test is performed immediately after the officer determines that there horizontal gaze nystagmus in your eyes. This test is to determine your motor skills and ability to physically perform to the standard required by the test. The officer will ask you to walk on an imaginary line. He will not tell you size or width of the line. This is a technique for the officer to make it appear you are on a tight rope and cause you to step off the line. Trust me if you knew that the line was suppose to be bigger then physiologically you would perform flawlessly. You are being set up to fail this test. The test is not complex but the officer wants you to think there is a lot of pressure in making sure you do not step off this imaginary line. Most of the time this test is not given in the exact format that NHTSA requires. The officer has his own scoring system for the test that is subjective. However, if the street is sloped or not even it is unfair for you to be scored subjectively. Any attorney you hire should take a picture of the street that you performed the test on to show a jury how one-sided the test was when performed most commonly in the middle of the night.

What is the one leg stand?

You are unlikely to have an officer administer this test correctly required by Title 17 under the NHTSA standards. There are possible variations of the exam. Sometimes officers will ask you to lift one leg up and count out loud while holding foot up. Other officers will ask you to count silently in your head while lifting your foot off the ground. Some officers want you to put your hands to your sides and others do not care. Despite the different standards that the officers use when they botched this exam, just remember people over 65, people overweight, or people with leg injuries cannot perform this exam. This exam is a joke and never performed correctly when given the opportunity to cross-examine an officer on the stand about NHTSA standards and their ability to accurately administer the exam as the manual states. The officer will just state you were swaying and your head did not remain still during the test. This has no direct correlation with how many drinks you had or how intoxicated you are on a scale 1 to 10. No juror takes this test seriously at trial!

What else will a jury hear at trial regarding my DUI stop?

There are other subjective criteria of intoxication that will come in at trial. The officers will always 100% of the time state there was an odor of alcohol, you had bloodshot eyes and you had slurred speech. There is no way an officer can tell how many drinks you had and what kind of drinks by the odor of alcohol. Furthermore, lack of sleep and contact lenses cause bloodshot eyes. The officer has never seen you before and has no knowledge about what your eyes are supposed to look like. Lastly, the officer understood everything you had said to him about that night when he wrote his report so how truly slurred was your speech? A jury will see right through these tactics that the officer will try to testify to as instruments of intoxication. It is important to hire an experienced attorney in San Diego that handles these matters on a day-to-day basis.

If you have any questions about a DUI in San Diego, feel free to contact San Diego DUI attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Attorney

Monder Law Group - News

Attacking a Field Sobriety Test in San Diego

The most important thing to do in starting the preparation in any DUI case is to preserve the scene where the DUI stop took place. This means take photographs of the area of the scene at the time the DUI investigation was being conducted. There is a lot of good information an attorney can obtain by looking at pictures at the scene of the crime. Officers are required to follow certain standards under Title 17 to conduct a field sobriety test without the probability of error. The police reports will state that the area where the test was conducted was smooth and level. However, this is not always the case. Most roads and sidewalks are sloped and are not smooth by any means.

What should I be doing before my court date for my DUI?

The next step is to gather any and all witnesses that may be involved with the DUI stop. This includes any and all passengers and officers on scene. The information that you should gather from the witnesses is names, date of births, badge numbers, addresses and telephone numbers. This will help during the investigation stages if subpoenas need to be sent out as well as to determine if there is anyone with a criminal record that we would not want to call as a witness. The longer you wait to get the information from the witness it is likely that their memory will become deteriorated and not remember much about the incident. We like to preserve witness statements in case they forget what they observed months earlier.

How do I get the officer report of my DUI arrest?

The most important report is the DS-367 and it can be obtained early on during the DMV APS hearing prior to the criminal proceeding commences. This is the officers sworn statement of what he or she observed on the date you were arrested. This is the best place to try and poke holes in the officer’s statement because he will be testifying exactly as what was written on his sword statement. The way to obtain these reports early is by sending out a discovery request from the DMV as soon as you are released from jail and have the chance to call the Driver Safety number on your pink sheet.

The above-mentioned information can all be obtained before you meet with an experienced San Diego DUI attorney. This information will be helpful at the onset of your case in building your defense. When preparing for trial it is important to have an expert testify on your behalf regarding an officers training in the field and the fact that officers field examination did not follow the manual that is required under Title 17. The expert will testify whether there is a proper Adams foundation laid for any of the evidence the prosecution tries to put in front of the jury.

How do I use the information I received for a DUI trial?

Jurors will have their own preconceived notions when it comes to DUI cases. If you are elderly, overweight or seemingly uncoordinated you may want to have other people on your jury that are similarly situated. It is important to ask the jurors about performance of the field sobriety test if where a requirement in getting a driver’s license. Most people will be honest by the end of the line of questioning and realize the field sobriety test is a shame. You probably did not know until now that the field sobriety test was optional and you did not have to perform them. However, the officer never told you that!

If you have any questions about a DUI in San Diego, feel free to contact San Diego DUI attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

Understanding the Nystagmus Field Sobriety Test in a San Diego DUI Case

Whenever an officer follows a vehicle for a suspected DUI. The first field sobriety test any officer performs in the field is the horizontal gaze nystagmus to determine whether there is a possibility of impaired driving. Under the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the officer observes smooth pursuit, nystagmus prior to a 45-degree angle, and nystagmus at maximum deviation.

There are conditions that will interfere with the test. Outside weather conditions and distractions have a negative affect on the Nystagmus test. However, medical conditions such as past concussions will provide false positive results for nystagmus based on impairment.

The officer is required to provide the following instructions before conducting the examination:

1. Suspects must remove their glasses if wearing any
2. Suspects must put feet together and place hands by sides
3. Suspects must keep head still while looking at the stimulus
4. Suspect must follow movement of stimulus with eyes only & do not stop looking at stimulus until test over
5. Position stimulus approximately 12 to 15 inches from nose in and slightly above eye level to start test
6. Check equal tracking of eyes
7. Check equal pupil size
8. Check lack of smooth pursuit (start with left eye, move stimulus 2 seconds to each side & perform twice each eye)
9. Check eyes for distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation (start with left eye, move stimulus 2 seconds to each side & hold in maximum position for 4 seconds & perform twice each eye)
10. Check eyes for onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees (start with left eye, move stimulus 4 seconds to reach suspects shoulder & stop to verify jerking continues)
11. Check vertical nystagmus.
12. Total the clues.

It is important for the officer to count the clues to determine probability of impairment. If the test is performed correctly, then there is a total of six clues for two passes for each eye for lack of smooth pursuit, distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation, and onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees. An officer just needs a minimum of four clues to determine if the suspect’s BAC level is above a .08%

If you have any questions about your DUI in San Diego, contact San Diego DUI specialist Attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney

Monder Law Group - News

Police Must Advise Refusal Used When Testifying in a San Diego DUI Trial

Police officers must inform the defendant that refusing to take the chemical test will be used in court or during trial.

In Sanchez v. Alexis (1982), Alexis, Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. When defendant was told to submit to a chemical test, defendant refused and his license was suspended. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of mandate because he claimed that the arresting officer did not warn him that his license could be suspended for refusing to submit a chemical test (Cal. Vehicle Code § 13353 (a)). Defendant also claimed that suspension of his license violated the procedural due process. Cal. Vehicle Code § 13353 (a) states that if a person refuses to submit a chemical test, the department of motor vehicle shall suspend and revoke the person’s privilege to drive a vehicle.

“Procedural due process,” governs how legal proceedings must be taken out. Procedural due process is rights to notice and a hearing, so any person who has been affected by the proceeding has the right to appear before a neutral judge or arbiter, and to explain its side of the case before a decision is made. Some of the procedural rights include the right to notice and a hearing, the right to have one’s case heard before a jury, the right to be represented by an attorney and the right to remain silent during criminal investigations and trial.

If you have any questions about your DUI case in San Diego, please contact San Diego DUI attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

“Under the Influence” Defined In a San Diego DUI Case

“Under the influence” is defined as when an alcoholic beverage affects the nervous system, the brain or muscles and prevents the person to drive or operate a vehicle in an appropriate manner like an ordinary person who is in full possession of his/her facilities.

In Byrd v. Municipal Court (1981), appellants were charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and drugs. After the appellants brought petitions for writs of prohibition or mandate seeking to restrain prosecution, the court denied them. The appellants’ demurrers were overturned by the municipal court because they argued that the use of the word “drugs” in the complaints did not give the adequate notice of the charges made against them.

In People v. Haeussler (1953), Haeussler (Appellant) was convicted of manslaughter (Penal Code, § 192 [3]) and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The appellant’s blood was taken while she was at the hospital and the result of the blood sample was taken without her consent. The appellant argued that the blood results were taken without her consent deprived her of due process law, but the court rejected the appellant’s argument. The court stated that the definition of “under the influence of intoxicating liquor” was appropriate.

In people v. Canty (2002), Canty (Defendant) was convicted of driving under the influence of methamphetamine. Defendant was ineligible for treatment under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 because driving under the influence of drugs is not part of Proposition 36. But, defendant was placed on probation and given consecutive county jail terms for misdemeanor offense.

The definition of “Under the Influence” was correctly used by the court in these three cases because each of the defendant’s or appellant’s nervous system or brain was affected by liquor or drugs and it caused their inability to drive a vehicle.

If you have any questions about your DUI case in San Diego, please contact San Diego DUI attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Attorney

Monder Law Group - News

Understanding Title 17 Requirements in a San Diego DUI Case

Provisions that are violated from California Title 17 regulations are the following:

Section 1219.1. Blood Collection and Retention (b) states that there should be enough blood collected in order to duplicate determinations. (e) mentions that the blood sample must be deposited into a clean, dry container and closed. (1) states that alcohol or other organic solvent cannot be used to clean a container. (g) states that in order to allow for analysis by the defendant, the remaining portion of the sample must be secured for a year.
Section 1219.2 Urine Collection and Retention (a) the only approved urine sample must be collected no sooner than twenty minutes. (b) the specimen must be placed in a clean and dry container. (c) in order to allow for analysis by the defendant, the remaining portion must be secured for a year.

Section 1219.3 Breath Collection states that a breath sample should be expired which are essentially alveolar in composition. The quantity of the breath sample must be measured by direct volumetric. After the breath sample was observed for at least fifteen minutes, the sample could be collected.

Section 1222.1 Forensic Alcohol Laboratory Records states that each laboratory which is licensed to perform forensic alcohol analysis must keep (1) an up-to-date record of their employees who are licensed or qualified as forensic alcohol supervisor and alcohol analysts, (2) a list of employees who are forensic alcohol analyst trainees, (3) records of samples that are analyzed by a laboratory, (4) records of the quality control program, (5) records of laboratory performance evaluation in alcohol analysis, (6) records determining the accuracy of breath testing tools and (7) records and records of such training provided to persons who operate breath testing tools.
People v. Adams. Based on the results of breath alcohol tests, Adams (Appellants) was convicted of violating Cal. Vehicle Code § 23152. Appellants challenged their convictions by arguing that the laboratory failed to comply with the calibration procedure. The court disagreed with the Appellants and held that the breath testing equipment was properly functioning, the administered test was proper and the operator was qualified. Section 1222.1 of the Cal. Vehicle Code was not violated.

If you have any questions about your DUI case in San Diego, please contact San Diego DUI attorney Vik Monder at 619.405.0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Lawyer