What follows below are selected excerpts from actual DUI cases that took place in California. Going to trial for a DUI can be a complicated and intimidating task. If you have recently been charged with a DUI in Los Angeles, feel free to contact Dr. DUI Okorie Okorocha with any questions that you may have.
Abhinav BHATNAGAR, Plaintiff, v. Jason INGRASSIA, County of Contra Costa, and City of San Ramon, Defendants., 2008 WL 7243781 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal., November 19, 2008), Defendant City of San Ramon's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to City of San Ramon's Motion for Summary Judgment, (No. CV07-02669 CRB.)
...CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE INDEPENDENT GROUND THAT OFFICER INGRASSIA HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST FOR DUI 7 C. THE ABUSE OF PROCESS CLAIM (SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION) AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE INDEPENDENT...
...to 42 USC section 1983 for violation of civil rights in the arrest of Mr. Bhatnagar by Jason Ingrassia for DUI on May 20, 2006. The remaining five causes of action are for state law claims: (1) false arrest; (2) abuse...
...the issues, it looked to him that the letter was typical of a person trying to get out of a DUI. In discussing the letter with Ingrassia and telling him that he was going to send it to the department, Holder...
Treadway v. People of the State of California, 2008 WL 4958885 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S., November 18, 2008), Petition for Writ of Certiorari, (No. 08-665.)
...PROCESS VIOLATED WHEN CALIFORNIA EXTENDS A PERIOD OF PRIORABILITY BEYOND THAT SPECIFIED IN A PLEA AGREEMENT SUBJECTING PETITIONER TO FELONY DUI PROSECUTION? TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iv OPINION BELOW 1 JURISDICTION 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS...
...2008 Supreme Court Order Denying Petition for Review App. 15 Defendant's Waiver of Constitutional Rights for Guilty Plea to Section 23152 and Other Selected Vehicle Code Sections and Addendum to Defendant's Waiver of Constitutional Rights Form-Terms of Probation-DUI (First Offense) App. 16 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 300 DeHaro Street Investors v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2008...
...CASE In 1981, the California Legislature adopted a limited form of habitual offender statute directed at Driving Under the Influence (DUI) cases ( see Stats. 1981, ch. 940). These statutes enhanced the punishment for a subsequent DUI offense based on the number of prior DUI convictions in the previous five years. In 1986, the legislature extended the period of priorability from five to seven years. In 2004, the California Legislature again extended the period of priorability of DUI cases from seven to ten years (Stats. 2004, ch. 550). This statutory scheme differs from most habitual offender statutes because...
Leland Bruce LESCHER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George VALVERDE, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendant and Appellant., 2008 WL 5417778 (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 5 Dist., October 31, 2008), Appellant's Opening Brief, (No. F055665.)
...§ 13353 11, 14, 15 § 13353.2 6 § 13353 , subd. (a) 9 § 13353 , subd. (c) 6 § 23152 6 § 23152, subd. (a) 3, 5 § 23152, subd. (b) 5 §23153 6 § 23612 4, 10, 11 § 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A) 9 Court Rules California...
...58-59; 77:11-14.) Officer Adams arrested Lescher and took him into custody for violation of Vehicle Code, section 23152 , subdivision (a). [FN2] (CT 59.) FN2. All further statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise indicated. While waiting...
...4 [FN4] ) Lescher's blood was drawn and he was then booked into the Mariposa County Jail for violation of section 23152 , subdivisions (a) and (b). (CT 59-60.) FN4. The transcript indicates it was Respondent's counsel who gave this testimony. However...
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNLA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Timmie Lance MCNEAL, Defendant and Appellant., 2008 WL 5150434 (Appellate Brief) (Cal., October 29, 2008), Brief of California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of People and Respondent, (No. S157565.)
...INTRODUCTION 1 I. WHAT “PERSONAL PARTITION RATIO” IS, AND IS NOT 6 II. THE STANDARD PARTITION RATIO WAS ADOPTED, AND DUI STATUTES AMENDED, IN RESPONSE TO THE INTER- AND INTRA-SUBJECT VARIABILITY OF PARTITION RATIO 11 A. Relevance largely misunderstood 11...
...ode, § 350 11 Evidence Code § 210 11 Health and Safety Code § 436.52 23 Vehicle Code § 23152 , subdivision (a) 5, 17 Vehicle Code § 23152 , subdivision (b) 16, 17 Vehicle Code § 23610 subdivision (b) 16 REGULATIONS Tit, 17, §§ 1221-1221.5 24 Tit...
...accurate and reliable. McNeal asserts that the only reliable evidence of intoxication in a “driving under the influence of alcohol” (“DUI”) prosecution in his case, or in any such case, is on is the “real” quantity of blood alcohol at the...
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Timmie Lance MCNeal, Defendant-Appellant., 2008 WL 5150435 (Appellate Brief) (Cal., October 29, 2008), Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant and Respondent McNeal, (No. S157565.)
...Honorable W. Robert Fawke, Judge Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant and Respondent McNeal Darryl W. Genis , Exclusive DUI Defense, Attorney for Amicus Curie, CDLA, et al, State Bar Number 93806, Three, West Carrillo Street, Suite 203, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, Telephone: (805) 966-0812, Fax: (805) 966-0813. TOPICAL INDEX A CITIZEN ACCUSED OF DUI AND/OR PER SE ALCOHOL OFFENSES SHOULD HAVE THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO CONFRONTATION, DUE PROCESS EQUAL PROTECTION AND TO...
...I. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 1 FACTS 3 II. DISCUSSION 6 A. BRANSFORD DOES NOT CONTROL ON A DUI CHARGE 6 B. HANKS WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED AS IT RELATES TO THE DUI CHARGE, BUT INCORRECTLY DECIDED AS IT RELATES TO THE PER SE OFFENSE 21 C. ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, NOT...
...17, § 1221.4(a)(1) 4 California Code of Regulations, Title 17, § 1219.3 4 Veh. Code § 23152 (a) 7, 12, 21 Veh. Code § 23152 (b) 12, 19, 21 Veh. Code § 23152 (a)(b) 6, 7, 12 Veh. Code § 23155 7 Veh. Code §23610 (a) 2 11 Veh. Code §23610 (a)(3...
Abhinav BHATNAGAR, Plaintiff, v. Jason INGRASSIA, County of Contra Costa, and City of San Ramon, Defendants., 2008 WL 7243775 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal., October 27, 2008), Defendant City of San Ramon's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication, with Attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, (No. CV07-02669 CRB.)
...state law in the sixth cause of action for false arrest because Officer Ingrassia had probable cause to arrest for DUI. Further, the officer who is charged with the alleged wrongful conduct is not an employee of the City of San...
...3.05.04), field interviews (CCCSO Policy no. 3.05.05) which includes temporary detention, and traffic related offenses including DUI within contract cities (CCCSO Policy No. 3.06.01) (Declaration of Eric Navarro, ¶ 7 and exhibits D-4, D...
...in any government programs in Contra Costa County (except to be represented by a public defender for the charge of DUI) and was not a beneficiary of any federal assistance. (Harvey Decl.: ¶ 3, Exh. E-l [Bhatnagar Depo., 286:25...
Abhinav BHATNAGAR, Plaintiff, v. Jason INGRASSIA, County of Contra Costa, and City of San Ramon, Defendants., 2008 WL 7243776 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Cal., October 27, 2008), Contra Costa County's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action with Attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, (No. CV07-02669 CRB.)
...of action for false arrest because the County is not liable because Officer Ingrassia had probable cause to arrest for DUI. 4. Seventh Cause of Action: Plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence or legal grounds to support his claims in the fourth cause...
...is not liable under the sixth cause of action (false arrest) because Officer Ingrassia had probable cause to arrest for DUI. (4) The County as a public entity can not be liable for general negligence as set forth below and is...
...arrested for driving with a blood alcohol level of greater than 0.08%, a violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152 (b). This section makes it a criminal offense to operate a vehicle with a blood alcohol above 0.08% by...
