San Francisco Criminal Lawyer Blog

June 12, 2018

You Can No Longer Lose Your License for Unpaid Traffic Fines, But Don’t Just Ignore an Unpaid Traffic Ticket in California

A year ago this month, the governor signed into law Assembly Bill 103, which served to end the state’s practice of suspending drivers’ licenses solely because they had unpaid traffic fines. The new law is a major boost for many California drivers, especially low-income individuals. However, just because you cannot lose your license from not paying a traffic ticket doesn’t mean that a traffic ticket will no longer have any major negative consequences on your personal finances and your life. There are still ways in which unpaid tickets can seriously harm your life. That is why it is important not to ignore your ticket, to take it seriously, and to contact a California traffic ticket attorney to discuss your options.

The new legislation ended the practice of suspending licenses through a procedural means. The law brought a stop to the process of California courts notifying the Department of Motor Vehicles about drivers’ unpaid traffic fines. With that notification process ended, the law also ended the DMV’s requirement to suspend licenses for that reason, according to the Porterville Recorder.

The state ended the practice because it was ineffective and potentially unfair, according to a Los Angeles Times report. The governor stated that the suspensions did not serve their actual purpose (to help the state increase its collection of unpaid traffic fines) and could potentially serve to “send low-income people into a cycle of job losses and more poverty.” An East Bay Express article highlighted the case of one Northern California man who received a traffic ticket but was unable to pay his fine. Since he did not pay, the state suspended his driver’s license. Needing to drive from Richmond to San Leandro for work, the man eventually ended up with four holds on his license and between $5,000 and $6,000 in fines owed.

June 6, 2018

Military Diversion: One Extra Option Available to Some Veterans Charged with DUI in California

by Uthman Law Office

If you’ve just been charged with misdemeanor drunk driving, you may think that this type of charge doesn’t really require you to retain legal counsel. After all, it’s just a misdemeanor, so it won’t affect your life that much, right? Furthermore, you might think that you can “get out of it” without an attorney, or will end up being convicted even with an attorney, so why spend the money? The reality is that even misdemeanor DUI convictions can have substantial effects on your life. However, with the aid of a skilled San Francisco DUI defense attorney, you may have more options than you think, including having the charge never appear on your record, even if you actually were driving drunk at the time.

Imagine it: the police pulled you over. The officer conducts a breathalyzer test, and your result is above a .08. There was nothing wrong with the test, and there was nothing wrong with your consent to it. Your case has no hope, right? Wrong. There may be many various methods through which a skilled defense attorney can assist you and reduce or eliminate the impact of this arrest.

For some veterans, they may have an extra option: military diversion. California has a statute, Penal Code Section 1001.80, that recognizes that there are often mitigating circumstances when it comes to veterans and violations of the law. This diversion program may, in the end, leave you with a result that’s as if the arrest never happened at all.

May 30, 2018

When Blood Evidence Collected Without a Warrant Should Be Excluded in a California DUI Trial

by Uthman Law Office

The U.S. and California Constitutions protect citizens from unreasonable searches. That protection can be especially important if you have been accused of driving while under the influence of alcohol. If the police have obtained your blood without first getting your informed consent or a valid search warrant, the blood-alcohol content test results from that blood may be inadmissible as a result of an improper warrantless search. In your DUI case, the difference between a conviction and an acquittal may be the blood evidence you do or don’t get suppressed. To make sure that your rights are protected and that you have a strong defense on your behalf, make sure you retain skilled San Francisco DUI defense counsel to fight for your rights.

An example of how readily such a situation can occur was the case of Matthew from Contra Costa County. Matthew, after allegedly finishing a beer and a golf game, traveled to visit his girlfriend. After a half-hour at the woman’s home, the pair set out together. Eventually, Matthew crashed near Concord. When law enforcement officers responded, one allegedly detected a “slight odor” of alcohol coming from Matthew. A second officer questioned the driver and allegedly noticed a “moderate odor” of alcohol on Matthew’s breath. His eyes were bloodshot and watery, according to the officer.

An ambulance took Matthew to the hospital for treatment. While the man was there, hospital staff drew his blood twice. The first time, his blood-alcohol level was 0.148. The second time, 77 minutes later, it was 0.11. At no time in the process was a search warrant obtained for Matthew’s blood.

May 23, 2018

Countering the Trial Strategies of the Prosecution in Your California Criminal Trial

by Uthman Law Office

When you are facing criminal charges, you are likely to face off against a prosecutor who is both very knowledgeable when it comes to the law and skilled when it comes to maneuvering within the criminal legal system. The prosecutor in your case may know many legal techniques and strategies to give the state a strong chance of achieving a conviction. To give yourself a fair chance in your criminal trial, you need to have the same amount of resources, meaning a skilled San Francisco criminal defense attorney with an in-depth knowledge of the law and the system.

An example of how trial strategy matters, and how you can counter the prosecution’s strategies in some situations, was a recent case from San Mateo County. Willard was on trial for felony domestic violence. The charges against the man were definitely serious, since they included “felony enhancements, prior strikes and prison priors.” This meant that Willard’s current case had the potential to conclude with his receiving a very long incarceration sentence.

In Willard’s case, the prosecution was attempting to exclude from evidence a statement by a police officer to a deputy prosecutor that the alleged victim was “a little unreliable and inconsistent,” and the defendant was seeking to keep that statement in. The judge ruled against the prosecution, meaning that the statement critical of the alleged victim stayed in.

May 16, 2018

New California Legislation Could Limit Immigration Questions in Unrelated Court Cases

by Uthman Law Office

News reports from the first part of this year highlighted a trend that many in both the legal and civil rights communities believed to be a harmful thing: the significant uptick in federal immigration authorities using courthouses as locations to identify and arrest undocumented immigrants. Whether they are parties to cases or witnesses, undocumented immigrants are often being asked under oath about their immigration status. Fearing that the answers they give could be used against them in deportation proceedings, many are simply avoiding court altogether. According to one Boston Globe report about the nationwide trend, immigrants are violating judges’ orders, violating probation and losing out on mental health services due to fear that their appearance inside the courthouse will end up getting them deported. To give yourself the best chance of protecting your rights, don’t just ignore your traffic ticket or other legal issue, though; contact a knowledgeable California defense attorney instead.

According to some California legislators, this issue of immigration enforcement inside courthouses is causing a wide range of problems in the legal system. Sen. Scott Weiner, one of the sponsors of a new bill, told KCRA 3 that many immigrants “won’t even show up in court for something as simple as a traffic ticket because they’re afraid they may be deported.”

Simply doing nothing in response to a traffic ticket is, of course, generally one of the worst options you can select. As the state’s Judicial Branch web page puts it, if “you ignore (do not respond to) your ticket, your situation will only get worse. Your fine will increase and additional penalties can be added.” Your driver’s license may be suspended. If you no-show on the court date stated on the ticket you signed, you may become guilty of committing an additional crime. Potentially, you can rack up hundreds of dollars of additional fines and even get arrested. Many immigrants are apparently willing to take these risks due to fear of deportation.

May 9, 2018

When Is (or Isn’t) a Warrantless Police Search of an Impounded Vehicle Allowable in California?

by Uthman Law Office

Interactions with law enforcement can be stressful events. You may think that you are being pulled over for a traffic violation, only to find that the scope of the stop has expanded now that the officer has you pulled over. The law places certain limits on what the police can do, however, and that includes the searches they perform without a warrant. If your person or possessions have been the subject of a warrantless police search, and you have subsequently been charged with a crime, make sure that you promptly retain an experienced San Francisco criminal defense attorney to fight for your rights.

An example of how a warrantless search can lead to the exclusion of evidence was the criminal trial of a man named Leroy. Leroy’s March 2015 interaction with law enforcement began the way many encounters do: an officer stopped him for committing a traffic violation. While that officer had Leroy stopped, another officer contacted him to let him know that Leroy was a suspect in a domestic violence incident that had happened 1-2 days earlier.

The two Fairfield officers took Leroy from his car, handcuffed him, and put him in a police vehicle. They then proceeded to search Leroy’s car. Since Leroy was alone in the car, and, allegedly, no one was available to take possession of the car, the police had it towed. In their search, the police found a two-foot-long brown wooden baton with a red tape handle. Based on that find, the prosecution added another charge against Leroy: violation of Penal Code Section 22210, which bars possessing “any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a billy, blackjack, sandbag, sandclub, sap, or slingshot.”

April 25, 2018

What You Can (and Cannot) Be Ordered to Pay For as Part of Restitution in a California Domestic Violence Case

by Uthman Law Office

When you are accused of certain crimes, you face the possibility of multiple different forms of punishment. For some crimes, you may potentially be at risk of being ordered to serve a prison sentence and to pay restitution to a victim. In order to face the possibility of restitution, though, the law has to authorize it. All of these legal and procedural details point out the importance of having a skilled and knowledgeable San Francisco criminal defense attorney on your side to use the law to defend you to the fullest extent possible.

One defendant facing a restitution issue recently was a man named Steven from Imperial County. The facts behind Steven’s case began as, unfortunately, many domestic violence matters do. Both Steven and his wife Veronica had been drinking in the garage. The drinking was followed by an argument, and the argument was followed by the husband grabbing the wife by the throat and bashing her head against the garage floor so hard that it cracked her skull. The gash in her head required seven staples.

The prosecution charged Steven with domestic violence in violation of Section 273.5 of the California Penal Code. He pleaded no contest, ultimately receiving a sentence of three years in prison. The law also allows the court to order a convicted defendant to pay monetary restitution. In this case, the wife sought restitution for a new cell phone, repairs to the washer/dryer, and $2,500 in medical bills, which collectively totaled more than $3,000. She also asked for another $14,000 in restitution to cover an alarm system and security windows. The trial judge ordered Steven to pay the full $17,000 in restitution.

April 18, 2018

A California Criminal Defendant Who Handled His Own Defense Shows Why That’s Often Not a Good Idea

by Uthman Law Office

At a trial’s end, a defendant is either guilty or not guilty. Ultimately, there is no difference between a defendant who avoids a conviction because key evidence was thrown out due to an illegal search versus someone who is declared not guilty by a jury. Based on these things, one thing that is wise, when facing charges, is to retain a knowledgeable San Francisco criminal defense attorney who can do everything they can to protect your rights to the fullest extent of the law, whether those arguments are factual or legal/procedural.

One thing you should not do, however, is to fire an attorney who is making an intelligent and potentially successfully procedural argument on your behalf so that you can represent yourself and make an outlandish factual argument instead. This brings us to the case of Izell from San Rafael, as reported by sfgate.com. Izell was on trial for forcible rape. The alleged rape took place in the summer of 2017 at Bay Club Marin, where the accused man worked. The accuser was a woman who was an acquaintance of the accused and worked near the club.

In the beginning of the case, Izell had counsel. The accused’s attorney, upon reviewing all of the information, discovered a flaw in the prosecution’s case, which is what good criminal defense attorneys do. Originally, the alleged victim told law enforcement that Izell raped her on July 27. The state obtained a search warrant that allowed them to access certain surveillance video footage and some of Izell’s Snapchat messages, based on a search warrant that had the July 27 date on it. Later, though, the alleged victim declared that the rape happened on July 13, rather than July 27.

April 12, 2018

The Limits of Consent in a California DUI Case and How Those Limits May Entitle You to the Suppression of Test Results

by Uthman Law Office

When law enforcement pull you over on suspicion of drunk driving, there are certain things they can do and certain things they cannot do. There are certain rules, for example, regarding when they can take your blood or breath for analysis. Even once you consent, there are limits to how they can use the sample you provide. If law enforcement goes beyond those limits, you may be entitled to an order that suppresses certain evidence in your criminal trial. An experienced San Francisco DUI attorney can help you make sure that your rights are fully protected in your case.

A recent case from Southern California is an example of how these protections can help you. In 2016, law enforcement officers stopped a woman named Aubree. The officer arrested Aubree for driving under the influence of alcohol. After he made the stop, he gave the driver the required admonishment regarding breath testing and blood testing. Regarding the blood test option, he told the woman that two vials of blood would be drawn, that one would go to the county crime lab for testing, and that the second vial would be “held at no cost to you.” The officer also explained that there was no way “to retain any kind of a sample for retesting” with the breath test option. Aubree consented to a blood test.

What happened next may have surprised Aubree. The state charged her not with driving while drunk but with driving while under the combined influence of drugs and alcohol. The crime lab had determined that Aubree’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit, but the police later sent the second vial to an outside lab, which performed a drug screen, and that test yielded a positive result.

April 6, 2018

How Very Small Details Can Potentially Make a Very Big Difference in Your California Criminal Case

by Uthman Law Office

There can be a variety of ways to achieve a successful result in your criminal case. One way is to succeed based upon the facts: demonstrating that the factual proof within your case simply cannot support a conviction. Other times, you may be able to avoid, or obtain a reversal of, a conviction if you can show that the law will not allow for a conviction on the charge that the state alleged. In still other circumstances, you may be able to use a procedural misstep by the state to your benefit in your case. Sometimes, even seemingly small errors can have big consequences. To make sure that your rights are protected to the fullest extent of the law, be sure you have retained experienced San Francisco criminal defense counsel.

An example of the last of these things in the above list was on display in the case against Johnny from San Diego County. Johnny began dating Dulce in the summer of 2014. Some time later, he moved in with the woman and her family. At some point after that, the relationship became violent. On various occasions, Johnny assaulted both Dulce and her ex-boyfriend. From this series of alleged attacks, the state arrested Johnny and charged him with numerous offenses. Two of those charges were counts of “corporal injury to a cohabitant” in violation of Subsection 273.5(h)(1) of the Penal Code. Johnny was eventually convicted on all of the charges and sentenced to 22 years. The court arrived at that sentence through several sentencing enhancements, one of which was based upon the two 273.5(h)(1) offenses.

The man appealed and won a reduction of his sentence. The problem with the original sentencing process was that the charging document (called an “information”) stated that Johnny was being accused of violating Subsection 273.5(h)(1), but the sentencing enhancement that the state sought was the one connected to Subsection 273.5(f)(1).