Los Angeles Criminal Defense Blog

In an imperfect world there are people who make false accusations and attempt to use the law to punish others. There are a number of different scenarios in which an individual can be falsely accused of a crime and must do anything and everything that he/she could to defend his/her name and save him/herself from jail time.

Sex offense crimes are especially harmful because they have the potential to greatly tarnish someone’s reputation. Whether a person is innocent or guilty, to be accused of a sex crime could mean that that individual is at risk of losing his or her job and source of income. Those accused of sex-crimes not only potentially face jail time, but also may have to register with the local police department as a registered sex offender. Registered sex offenders in a way are blacklisted; it affects where they can live and what jobs they can or can not have.

A great number of sex offenders are charged with crimes related to inappropriate relations with minors. However, those accused of sex offense crimes not related to minors sometimes get lumped into the same category with pedophiles. People accused of rape who wants to prove their innocence find this most frustrating. One of the most complicated things about rape cases is that the victim usually has public support, and just by lying he/she can cause enough harm to the accused. The same also goes for a younger party who consent to having sex with an adult, but lies about his or her age at the time of sex.

Even in sex offense crimes involving children, if the victim has ill motives towards the accused and wishes to seek vengeance in any way, “crying wolf” could greatly have an impact. It would then be up to the accused to seek professional legal advice from a criminal defense attorney who has experience with similar cases. For the Los Angeles area, and surrounding counties, the Law Offices of Rodney Nosratabadi could help.

Sex crimes can be particularly embarrassing crimes. They have the potential to take a toll on the accused’s professional and personal life. It is unfair for a person to endure harm to his or her reputation, and the risk of imprisonment and sex offender registration just because another person wants to use the court of law for their personal vendettas. Registration with the local police department is a life-long registration..

In the state of California, the Department of Justice host a website under Megan’s Law which lists designated sex offenders throughout California. Anyone in the public with internet access can go onto the website and pull up the name and usually a photograph of registered sex offenders. Listed on the offender’s profile is a physical description and the crime itself. For those individuals who face false convictions, to be publically labeled a sex offender can be very embarrassing. Sex offense crimes are very serious crimes that affect the accused for the rest of his or her life. With a criminal defense attorney, the defendant has a better chance of proving his or her innocence and restoring his or her public image.

There are a number of irresponsible drivers on the road who will stand guilty, even with the best defense attorney. However, there are also a percentage of drivers who are charged with a DUI who may have never been drunk at all. Sometimes when a person is pulled over, it can become very complicated. There are a small number of police officers who are capable of abusing their power and using it against drivers whom they feel disrespected them or challenged their authority.

For an officer to purposely tamper with evidence or blatantly lie about breath test results would be a lie and a crime. Sadly, there are police officers who have done this before. In the event that a person feels victimized by an officer and/or may receive a false DUI charge, he or she has the right to legally challenge the police department. A criminal defense lawyer, such as the Law Offices of Rodney Nosratabadi, could help tackle an intimidating institution such as a city police department. There have been other legal cases in which citizens took their police departments to court over unjust conduct. Violations by police officers include, but are not limited to, racial profiling, excessive use of force, wrongful death, false charges and convictions, and more. Just because someone is a law enforcement officer does not mean that he or she is always right. Even more-so, it doesn’t mean that he/she are exempt from the law.

To give an example, there was one case of a young African-American female driver in Riverside County who was charged with a DUI after her tire had blown out. She argued that she was not under the influence at all, and the reason her car had swerved was because of the blowout. She claimed that she was treated poorly by the officer and that his manner of frisking her was inappropriate and violating. She is currently in the process of seeking legal action against the officer and fighting off the fraudulent DUI charge.

There has been a history of police officers in the Los Angeles County abusing their power. While it is known that the intentions of law enforcement are to protect and to serve, there are always rotten apples that give the entire system a bad name. If a person is innocent of a DUI charge, then that person should not have to endure the harsh consequences that DUI offenders must deal with, such as a suspended license, court fees, and jail time. A criminal defense attorney would make sure that the rights of the accused aren’t neglected, whether they are indeed guilty of the crime or completely innocent. False DUI charges could also be applied to people who have medical conditions that they shouldn’t be held accountable for. Also in Riverside County was a case in which a male in his early 20s was charged with a DUI when he had an unexpected seizer while driving and swerved on the road. All people who have trouble maneuvering their vehicles while driving aren’t under the influence. People who are falsely accused do have rights, and they deserve proper representation in the court of law.

Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers commonly question whether proven forensic evidence, such as chemical tests, can be questioned in the court of law. It may be difficult to find any reason why this evidence should be inadmissible.

Recently, a case in California has shown that all evidence may be questioned. Many hundreds of cases in the areas surrounding Los Angeles are now being called to question. The urine and blood tests acquired for the defendants were processed by a technician whose integrity has shown flaw. The technician admitted to purposefully changing test results in a previous position. The technician, Aaron Layton, worked for Bio-Tox Laboratories in Riverside County.

The case of the Bio-Tox tests shows how it may be possible to find problems with forensic evidence. Many DUI attorneys submit independent chemical tests to control this situation. An individual accused of a DUI in Los Angeles has the right to request an independent test at the time the blood sample is taken.

In a small town in Pennsylvania, officers established a DUI checkpoint. During the course of the proceedings, 35 cars were stopped. These 35 stoppages lead to 3 arrests. At first this may seem like a small number. Do the math, though, and you will find that this is 8.5 percent of the people stopped.

There are two possible scenarios that can lead to this result. The first scenario is that approximately 8.5% of the people driving in the small town are intoxicated beyond the legal limit. Circumstances such as location may increase the amount of people that may be driving drunk and should be taken into account. The time of day, such as 2PM versus 2AM can additionally come into play. In the end, though, it is unlikely such a high percentage of all drivers on the road were over the legal limit.

The second scenario is that the stoppages were not random. If the officers were only pulling over individuals showing signs of intoxication, the higher percentage would be much more likely. This calls into question the same recurring debate about DUI checkpoints.

Many Los Angeles defense attorneys argue these checkpoints are a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to require probable cause to be stopped in a vehicle. If the checkpoint is not random, are personal rights more protected? The debate has been to the highest courts and Chief Justice Rehnquist has said DUI checkpoints are here to stay … for now.

When a driver is caught driving in California with a blood alcohol level higher than a .08%, that driver may be charged with a misdemeanor DUI. Law enforcement officials may neglect a few crucial rights of the accused in this situation. Among those rights is the chance to request a separate blood test for private testing following a DUI arrest.

When a driver is taken to the police station for a breath test, he or she is not required by law to provide one. However if that person refuses, there may be legal consequences, and he or she can still be charged. This is termed the “implied consent” of the driver; implied consent means that all drivers consent to a chemical test simply by operating a vehicle in California.

Breath tests cannot be saved and used during a hearing. They are often unreliable. This does not mean a person may register a .1% if he has not been drinking. It may mean, though, that a person can register a .08% when the actual blood alcohol count is .07% - a crucial difference. An independent blood sample may provide additional defense against the accusation, or it may verify the results of the breath test.

In any case, an accused has the right to present a separate blood sample to his or her defense attorney in Los Angeles. The defense attorney will work to assure there is an accurate, independent blood test. Because the DUI attorney will not likely be present during the arrest, the burden of requesting the blood sample typically falls on the accused. It is up to the driver to ensure the right to an independent blood sample is offered while being held for suspicion of DUI.

Driving under the influence is a crime. If you are caught driving with a blood alcohol level higher than .08%, you are committing a crime in the state of California and will be charged. Driving under the influence is dangerous and not endorsed in any form. However, even when you are committing a crime, you still have rights. It is the job of a criminal defense attorney to protect those rights and preserve your interest during your case and in your future at work or in the community. Any criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles would encourage you to understand your rights and work to protect them from the minute you are pulled over for suspicion.

#1 There Must be Probable Cause

A police officer must have a reason to pull you over. Driving a fancy car, leaving a concept or being a young kid is not a valid reason to pull you over. If you are not showing visible signs of intoxication, then the arrest is illegal. Ask your officer why you were pulled over and be sure to inform your defense attorney of the answer.

#2 Field Sobriety Tests are Optional

You do not have to comply with a field sobriety test when you are pulled over for suspicion of DUI in Los Angeles. Any portable field breath test is also optional on your part. If you do not wish to go through this process, inform the arresting officer that you know it is not required by law.

#3 You Must be “Mirandized”

A DUI is more than a traffic stop; it is an actual arrest for a crime. This means your arresting officer must advise you of your constitutional, or “Miranda,” rights prior to asking you any further questions. If your arresting officer does not provide you with this information, inform your defense attorney that your rights have been violated.

#4 You Have a Choice of Blood or Breath Test

You may not refuse a test at this point. If you do, you will be subject to criminal accusation due to the “implied consent” law. This means that my driving you have consented to alcohol testing. However, you do have the choice of accepting a blood test or a breath test. If you are not given a choice, inform your defense attorney.

#5 You Have the Right to an Independent Test

Breath tests do not last after the initial registry. Because of this, you are entitled to a private blood sample if you are given a breath test. You may give this blood sample to your defense attorney in Los Angeles for an independent test.

Evidence that officer observed driver weaving in his lane and almost hit the curb supported finding of reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop, even absent showing of officer’s particular expertise or that weaving occurred over a substantial or considerable distance.

In the event that your California Driver’s License is subject to an Administrative Per Se Hearing, you need a knowledgeable attorney on your side to help you to preserve your driving rights. Please call us at (714) 955-8365 for a free telephonic consultation.

Defendant was stopped for driving a stolen vehicle, but police information was outdated and the vehicle was not actually stolen. Cops conducted a stop and noticed objective symptoms of intoxication and the Defendant was arrested for DUI. Trial court granted the 1538.5 motion (Motion to Suppress). Defendant lost the DMV Administrative Per Se and appealed. Court of appeals upheld APS ruling because police conduct was not egregious (or that the police did not willfully fail to update stolen vehicle reports).

In the event that your California Driver’s License is subject to an Administrative Per Se Hearing, you need a knowledgeable attorney on your side to help you to preserve your driving rights. Please call us at (714) 955-8365 for a free telephonic consultation.

A uniformed cop in an unmarked police car conducts a traffic stop and notices objective signs of DUI and finds open alcohol bottle in vehicle after inventory search. DMV suspends California Driver’s License after Admin Per Se. Defendant appeals contending that arrest was not legal. Court reasoned that CVC 40800 governs: “[e]very traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 or 11 of this code (traffic safety laws) shall wear a full distinctive uniform, and if the officer while so on duty uses a motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color specified by the commissioner”. Here there was no evidence that Sgt. Pharris was a traffic officer or that his main duties consisted of traffic enforcement. On the contrary, Phariss appeared to be exercising supervisory duties on the night in question: Rather than make the arrest himself, he requested that another uniformed deputy assist him at the scene. Even if Phariss was working speed trap duty or traffic, this would not violate 40800 b/c DUI is not a speed violation. Caveat: cop in unmarked car can arrest for DUI.

In the event that your California Driver’s License is subject to an Administrative Per Se Hearing, you need a knowledgeable attorney on your side to help you to preserve your driving rights. Please call us at (714) 955-8365 for a free telephonic consultation.

Officer’s statements containing fire captain’s hearsay observations of events were admissible in Administrative Per Se. Fire captain’s hearsay statements (while on duty) were admissible to supplement or explain driver’s admission and evidence was sufficient to find that driver refused to take blood test.

In the event that your California Driver’s License is subject to an Administrative Per Se Hearing, you need a knowledgeable attorney on your side to help you to preserve your driving rights. Please call us at (714) 955-8365 for a free telephonic consultation.