DUI In California

Reader’s Question:

I have heard several cases about DUI here in Whittier, California that makes me more curious about it. Question is, what are the possible DUI defenses that can be brought out in a DUI trial that are related to the DUI stop?

Kyla

Whittier, CA

In a DUI case in Whittier, California for example, the prosecution should prove that the person was driving a vehicle while intoxicated in order to be found guilty. You may think that this is very obvious, but this could be an issue that can be brought out in a DUI trial where the police officer arrives later at the scene of an accident or where a vehicle is parked and the driver is asleep.

Another defense that could be used in a DUI case is that the police officer didn’t have actual reason to stop the vehicle of the person who is suspected for DUI. The police officer simply has to have a probable cause to pull the driver over. Traffic violations such as unsafe lane change, expired license plate tags or speeding could provide the excuse the officer needs to pull a driver over. In other words, the officer should have a legal reason to stop the vehicle and suspect that the driver was intoxicated. Weaving within a lane is generally used for probable cause, but this by itself would not be sufficient evidence that the driver was indeed under the influence.

Reader’s Question:

We are so worried about our father because he was just arrested for DUI here in Corona, California. We just bailed him out and now we are figuring out what to do next. What could be the possible defenses in a DUI case?

Nelson

Corona, CA

Possible defenses in a DUI case are almost limitless due to the complexities of the offense. Your father could use a lot of defenses on his DUI case in Corona, California. But there are most common defenses in a DUI case.

First of all, the prosecution should prove that your father was driving at the time the offense was committed. If there was no witness to his driving, the prosecution should prove this essential fact using both direct and circumstantial evidence. The police officer should also have a probable cause to stop, detain and/or arrest your father because if not, evidence against him will be suppressed. When your father was already under arrest, he should have been warned about his Miranda Rights because if not, incriminating statements could be suppressed if warnings were not given during a custodial interrogation. The implied consent warnings should have also been given to your father. He should have been advised about the consequences of refusing to take a blood or breath test because if not, he could use that a defense.