Perhaps the most common question I receive about DUI’s is what to do if your stopped? Many believe there are magic bullets that will prevent them from being charged. Clearly, short of drinking and driving in the first place, the best way I can respond to such questions is to inform people of the rights and responsibilities in such situations. Most people have no idea of what their rights are and therefore they do not properly exercise them.

Since DUI in California is one of the most technical areas of the law, I will try to address the procedures, rights and issues from when one is stopped through the arrest itself. It goes without saying that this is just a cursory review and does not encompass all of the rights, details and issues that may arise.

The Stop

Although drivers are sometimes stopped for “erratic” driving or “straddling lanes,” often one is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. This usually involves an improper lane change, speeding, red light or some other traffic violation. The officer needs probable cause prior to initiating the stop.

Everyone is aware that the officer will ask for license and registration and that one must present that to the officer.  But depending on the time of day, the location and facts, the officer may believe the driver was drinking and proceed to ask questions like: “where are you going?” “where were you coming from” and “did you have anything drink?"  It is at this point that people are not aware of what they are or are not required to do.

In California, you are not required to make any statements to the police. Short of presenting your license and vehicle information, you are not required to answer any of the above questions or make any other statements. Often, police are waiting for incriminating statements from the driver in order to justify the administration of field sobriety tests (“FST’s”). For example, if a driver responds by saying “yes officer, I had a few beers” then there is cause already to have the driver exit the vehicle and request the FST’s. On the other hand, if a driver politely refuses to make any statements the officer will have to justify cause from his observations (e.g. odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, erratic driving etc..) and other facts as to the suspicion of drinking. All of which are considerably less reliable and accurate than incriminating statements made by the driver himself. In short, one is well within their rights to politely refuse answering any questions and let the officer proceed without any such information.

Field Sobriety/Preliminary Alcohol Screening Tests 

If an officer has established cause to detain for suspicion of DUI, he will generally ask the driver to exit the vehicle and perform a variety of FST’s. These range from the “one-leg stand” ; the “walk and turn” test;  the horizontal gaze nystagmus (following the finger with your eyes).

The first and most important issue to realize here is that there is no statutory requirement to submit to FST’s in California. Simply put, you are not required to submit to such tests and you may politely refuse. There are no enhanced penalties for refusing the FST’s and although case law is unsettled in this area, defense counsel will generally be successful in suppressing the prosecutions evidence of a refusal to submit to such FST’s should the matter proceed to trial.

The officer may also ask for the driver to blow into a Preliminary Alcohol Screening device (“PAS”). This is a small pocket size device generally administered at the scene of the stop to determine if there is alcohol in the breath.  There is no statutory authority requiring a driver to submit to a PAS test if he/she is not on probation for a prior DUI and is 21 years of age or older (drivers under the age of 21 are required to submit to the PAS test or lose their license for a year if they refuse. The various legal issues facing these under age drivers will not be addressed herein). In fact, the law specifically states the officer will  advise the driver that such a test is not required and that one does not have to take it.  Of course, if a driver does submit to a PAS test and it reads .08 or above, the officer will have cause to believe you were driving under the influence and will take you to the station for further chemical testing.

So what does this all mean? That one doesn’t have to submit to any tests at all and wont be charged with a DUI? No!…in Part II, we will look at what happens from this point on. What chemical tests will be required at the police station; the consequences of refusing those tests; as well as the procedures and penalties for a DUI in court as well as with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

State legislature’s and law enforcements zeal to stop as many suspected drivers for DUI has resulted in a gradual erosion of basic constitutional rights and protections.  Many client’s come to me surprised to hear that certain rights they always heard about do not apply in DUI cases. For example, when you are arrested on suspicion of DUI, handcuffed in the police car and on your away to the station for a breath or blood test you are not entitled to:

– have Miranda rights read to you;

– an attorney prior to submitting to the tests;

– refuse a blood or breath test without consequences (a.k.a. offering potentially incriminating evidence against yourself).

And there are others. As much as these rights are a staple of our criminal justice system they do not apply in a DUI arrest.

Pretty bad, you say? Well things get much worse. Some states are now training their police officers in the use of syringes to effectuate forced blood draws to those who refuse to submit to a breath test. Consider the following:

BOISE, Idaho (AP) Sept 13 — When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’” Dowell said. It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

So if the thought of a cop with a flashlight scares you, wait till your approached with a needle.  Cant get much worse you may think? Well then consider this gem of police conduct…how about  forced catheterization for a urine sample:

LAWRENCEBURG, Ind. Sept. 3– An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit claiming that police forcibly withdrew blood and urine from his body during a drunken driving arrest, WLWT-TV reported.

According to the suit, police arrested Jamie Lockard, 53, on suspicion of drunken driving in March.

A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings.

Lockard and his attorney claim in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine and blood test.

Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard’s attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will. (Read the full article here).

Hardly an isolated case …see this

In California, other than providing your ID and vehicle registration you are not obligated to make any statements to the police if stopped. You are not required to answer where you were going or what you were doing. You are also not obligated to take any field sobriety tests (e.g. walk the straight line); nor are you required to take the Preliminary Alcohol Screening test “PAS” if you are over the age of 21 (a small breathalyzer machine administered at the scene of the stop). You are, however, statutorily obligated to take the actual blood or breath test at a regulated facility (usually a police station) if you are detained on suspicion of DUI.

An Austin American Statesman article recently addressed the issue of blood alcohol test refusal. According to the article, in Texas, politicians, prosecutors and judges refused blood alcohol tests 100% of the time when stopped for suspicion of DUI. The average Texan refused to take a test only 50% of the time.

As in Texas, California has its own implied consent law governing the issuance of licenses within the state. A California Licensee agrees to submit to a blood alcohol test as a condition of being issued the license. If he or she refuses, their license is suspended automatically for year–even if the DUI case is dropped or dismissed. In California, certain procedures by the police must be followed before a “refusal” is legitimate.  With competent representation, a license suspension for refusal can often be challenged. However, if the driver refused and the proper procedures were followed, it is likely that they will lose their license for a year–a significant burden in cities like Los Angeles where people are married to their automobiles.

Of course such a license suspension should be weighed against the consequences of taking a blood alcohol test, especially in light of inaccuracies and issues with breathalyzer machines discussed here.  Without such a test, the prosecution usually has no physical evidence of impairment, and is required to rely on the testimony of the officer–significantly weakening the prosecution’s case and raising the issue of reasonable doubt.

The Statesman’s article demonstrates that politicians, prosecutors and judges are aware of DUI laws and procedures, and are therefore able to make informed decisions tailored to their individual circumstances. By contrast, the average citizen is usually unaware that they have two problems to deal with: 1. the criminal case; and 2. the DMV administrative action against their driver’s license; to say nothing of the complex web of other laws and procedures that are inherit in a DUI charge.

Perhaps articles like the ones above will inform and educate the public of their rights and options, so the privileged few are not the only ones “in the know.”