Phoenix DUI Abogados

Below, I discuss the seven steps through a DUI Case.  A Driving Under the Influence Charge is a serious offense and is very complex.  As a Board Certified DUI Defense Lawyer, I evaluate your case and look for the best possible outcome.  Below, I briefly discuss requesting a driver license hearing, hiring a DUI attorney, going to court for the first time and the arraignment, requesting the evidence against you, the pretrial conference, motions to be filed, and the trial.  This is an overview of how your case can proceed and will give you some idea as to how I will defend you from a DUI charge in the State of Utah. 

 When we take your case to trial, we always request a jury.  In Utah, you have the option to have a bench trial (with only a judge) or a jury trial.  Utah law allows four jurors for a class B misdemeanor DUI offense.  If the DUI is a Class A misdemeanor, Utah law allows six jurors.  If the DUI is a felony DUI because there has been two prior DUI convictions or offenses within a ten year period, then Utah law allows eight jurors to hear the case.

Voir Dire:  The process of selecting the jury is called Voir Dire.  It means “speak the truth.”  This is a process where they bring in a jury pool of about 16 to 20 jurors for your average DUI case.  Most of the time, the judge conducts the voir dire process meaning the judge will question the jury panel about their fitness to hear the DUI case.  People can be excused from the panel for many different reasons.  One of the main reasons is because they have very strong feelings about DUI because they have had some involvement with a DUI situation like being in a car accident.  Once the people are removed for cause, then the jury is selected by a process where the prosecution will strike three jurors and the defense will strike three jurors.  The remaining four people will be the jury to hear the case.

Jury Instructions:  After the voir dire process and the jury is selected, the judge will give the jury instructions on how to judge the case.  These are preliminary instructions.  The judge will usually read the formal charge at this time.

Opening Statements:  Both the Prosecution and Defense is allowed to give an opening statement to tell the jury their side of what the evidence will show through out the trial.  The Defense has the option to reserve their opening statement until the Prosecution is finished with its case.

Evidence:  Next the prosecution will call its witnesses to testify, present photographs, chemical test evidence, and any other relevant evidence.  The Defense has right to cross examine any of the witnesses that testify.  Once the prosecution is finished, the Defense then has the option to put on evidence.  In reality, many times, the Defense will rest without putting on evidence and argue that the prosecution has not met the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the client is guilty.  Once the Defense is finished, the prosecution has the option to call rebuttal witness and the Defense can then call rebuttal witnesses.

Closing Arguments:  When all of the evidence has been presented to the jury by both sides, the judge will then give closing jury instructions.  The prosecution will give a closing argument first.  It is reasoned that because the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case, the prosecution also gets to do another argument after the Defense.  So, the prosecution gives a closing statement, then the Defense gives a closing statement, and then the prosecution gives a final rebuttal statement.

Jury Deliberations and Verdict:  After the closing arguments, the jury is taken to a room to deliberate and to come up with a unanimous decision about the guilt or innocence of the charge.  There is no time limit on the jury.  I have had juries come back in 20 minutes and others come back 8 hours later.  The verdict has to be unanimous.

“Alert Signal” from a Properly Trained Drug-Detecting Dog is Enough to Establish Probable Cause for a Warrantless Search during the Roadside Stop of a Vehicle.

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Florida v. Harris, __U.S.__ (no. 11-817) in which it overruled the Florida Supreme Court’s previous holding that K-9 officers in Florida must be able to present evidence of a dog’s previous performance in the field, including how often the dog had signaled the presence of drugs when none were found.

In this particular case, the same dog had twice alerted officers to the presence of certain illegal drugs in the defendant’s vehicle, and both times the search failed to produce any evidence of the drugs in question. However, on one of the occasions, officers found ingredients for the eventual production of methamphetamine, and the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of those ingredients.

The Florida Court had ruled that the mere fact that a dog had been trained and certified was not sufficient, without more, to establish that an alert from the dog was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause for a warrantless search.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, said that the legal standard for probable cause was “practical and common-sensical” and that the requirements imposed by the Florida Court were too rigid. “All we have required,” Justice Kagan wrote, “is the kind of ‘fair probability’ on which reasonable and prudent people, not legal technicians, act.”

Kagan observed that the dog’s signaling the scent of drugs was not necessarily a “mistake” since the dog’s nose was capable of sensing the residual odor of narcotics. She added that the better measure of the dog’s reliability is not what happens in the field but how the dog performs in controlled testing environments where the testers know when drugs are present or not. “For that reason, evidence of a dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can provide sufficient reason to trust his alert,” she wrote.

One of the ongoing concerns about dog sniff alerts is that the individual who determines whether there is an “alert signal” is almost inevitably a law enforcement officer who frequently has an interest in conducting the search.  Since all that is now required is training and certification, it would be increasingly difficult to question the reliability of the entire practice.

The post U.S. Supreme Court Lowers Government’s Burden for “Dog Sniff” Searches appeared first on My Denver DUI Lawyer.