Page 1 of 20
Posted on December 30 at 11 a.m.
"12 hours from bottle to throttle" is the rule I have publicly advocated since 1981. Even if our government won't embrace this rule, it is still a great rule of personal governance (except for an avowed alcoholic it should be 72 hours from bottle to throttle). There are now more viable ways to get around (even in California where public transportation pales by comparison to the likes of NYC) like Uber, and Lift, and good old Taxis, and let's not forget Designated Drivers (meaning alcohol free drivers, not the least drunk person in your group, but with alcohol in his/her system.
Tragedies like this one are avoidable. Many lives (not just Malory's and Raymond's) were terribly affected like friends and families on both sides.
So this New Years Eve, if you are going to imbibe. "12 hours from bottle to throttle" is the rule you should follow. Try it out. Save a life. Or at a minimum save yourself the money and grief of defending a DUI.
Now, having said that, and knowing there are those who are unwilling or unable to follow this rule, and knowing it is legal (in California) to drink and then drive (provided you are not 'under the influence' and your BAC is at or below .079%), (That electric billboard on 101 N/B approaching Las Positas that says "Buzzed Driving I'd Drunk Driving" is false advertising in California, and only applies in states that have DWAI driving while alcohol impaired laws)If you chose to drive after drinking and you get stopped:1. Don't answer any questions (just give the officer your CDL, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration (this means don't say you have or have not been drinking, don't say when you started, or stopped or how much or little you had and don't say whether you feel any effects2. Don't take any field sobriety tests. This means No eye test, no walking test, no balance test, no finger count, no hand pat, no writing or reciting the alphabet and no pre arrest breath test. In summary: DON'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND DON'T TAKE ANY TESTS BEFORE ARREST. 3. If arrested, the officer will tell you that he requests you to take a blood or breath. Tell him/her you will take blood if you have to take a test, but you are not waiving your 4th Amendment protections.4. Immediately upon being released from jail or the sobering center, send a letter to a) the arresting agency, b) the SBDA, and c) the DOJ Goleta Crime lab. This letter should say: I revoke my consent to take my blood which was given under duress, and demand that my blood be immediately returned to me, and further object to anyone searching my blood for alcohol or drugs, and finally, I object to any ex parte contact by law enforcement or the DA with any Judge and demand notice and an opportunity to be heard if an application for a warrant is sought prior to the return of my blood, and prior to testing.
On Dies Family Awarded $2.5 Million Settlement
Posted on November 7 at 8 a.m.
Paying for law enforcement is a good start, but the crimes that thes LEOs arrest people for occurred in the Chumash nation, not Santa Barbara, and the Chumash don't have a criminal justice system with judges, prosecutor and defense attorneys. The Chumash freeload on Santa Barbara County's criminal justice system. Why aren't they being required to pay for using OUR CJ system.
Their tribal members get $30,000 a month, and when they get in trouble, some of them (like Rebecca Sandoval, who was 'Huffing" Nitrous) actually get the services of the public defender!
Also, they use a tremendous amount of our county water to flush their toilets and wash their dirty sheets and plates. Why don't we just tell them to drill some wells and get their own damn water. That might curtail their expansion a bit.
On Chumash Contract for Cops
Posted on October 27 at 11:59 a.m.
DUI checkpoints are great PR for law enforcement because law abiding citizens love to hear this kind of 'news'. They are also a tremendous way to boost the olficers pension and overtime incomes. However, they are WORTHLESS at achieving their required objectives:1. To educate2. To deter; and3. To apprehend.In the seminal case of Ingersol, police utilizd an educational pamphlet which each motorist was given. 19 years later NO LE agency in 'Avoid the 12' hands out any educational pamphletThere is no provable deterrence, but LE loves to point to the low number of arrests to argue they succeeded in deterring.Apprehension is so low as to be a shameful squandering of police resources.Heck, as a DUI defense lawyer, I would profit from a success in apprehension, though I still feel the use of checkpoints is wrong. They use them for 'general crime apprehension' otherwise known as insurance and licensing violations, and anything else that turns up in these suspicion-less, warrantless fishing expeditions.
On Friday Night Driver Checkpoint
Posted on October 26 at 11:32 a.m.
H-G,Morua contacted me through family and he indicated that he was ashamed he had run, and he wanted to take responsibility. I had to find a way to meet his directive without allowing him to bring unnecessary punishment (more than he would otherwise receive) and the easiest way to do that is to align the victims desires with the clients desire since the DA is influenced by victim input (if Malory's family had told the DA to insist upon Life in prison, DDA Arnie Tolks would have probably done so). In fact, the last person to insinuate that I was working with Bob Stoll was Mr. Tolks and the I/O JC Hunter, so which one of those is your true ID?
On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?
Posted on October 26 at 11:24 a.m.
BC, at .069% (just .012 below the legal limit) there is neither a presumption in favor of, nor against being under the influence. More important at that point is the point on the alcohol absorption/elimination curve and the drivers tolerance or intolerance to alcohol. Some people would definitely be unsafe to drive at .069% while others would be fine.
Posted on October 25 at 1:29 p.m.
AutoC, don't believe everything your government tells you. Your name is not Autopilot. The chart is dead wrong if that's what it says. I guarantee, that if you weigh 205 pounds, (normal weight, not obese) and drink 1.5 ounces of 80 proof, your BAC would never approach 0.03. That might be your theoretical max BAC if you shot the alcohol intravenously, but through oral consumption, NEVER. Lastly, slight impairment is not the standard for driving. Otherwise soccer moms and soccer dads impaired by kids in the car, people with alergies sneezing or coughing, people addicted to canine driving to Starbucks in the morning to get their fix would all be guilty. And certainly the standard for walking is not as you suggest. In order to be against the law walking, you have to be so intoxicated that you are a danger to yourself or others, not merely distracted.
Posted on October 25 at 8:37 a.m.
AC, define 'impaired'. And BTW, you could not possibly be a .03 from the drink you described, more like .003 max. If you are impaired at that level, you should NEVER cross a street, or even leave the house.
And For the record, the standard for driving is not merely 'impaired' (to the slightest degree) but the much higher standard of 'under the influence' which is 'drunk'.
Posted on October 24 at 4:11 p.m.
Dear Autocoalition: as Mr. Morua's attorney, I have seen the initial medical records upon admission and can tell you that Malory's BAC was so negligible that there was a legal presumption that she was NOT impaired by alcohol at the time she was run down. My client took responsibility for his part of this horrific tragedy, and he thought his boss would too, but apparently that kind of honesty is not part of her moral fiber.
Dear Bill Clausen, do you really want to say that because a young woman worked in a bar, she was somehow less of a victim?
Posted on October 10 at 9:53 p.m.
"The prosecutor has far more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated, and if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations …While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficial forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst." Justice Robert Jackson, prior to serving as chief U.S. Prosecutor at Nuremberg
On Prosecutor Faces State Bar Complaint
Posted on October 10 at 9:30 p.m.
NOBODY (certainly not a 3 year old) should be victimized, but just because Justin did right by you in NO WAY equates to him being a good and ethical prosecutor and it certainly does not atone for all the people he has Victimized and they are many IMO, So heed your own advice: easy! Your welcome