Sterling man charged with DUI, possession of controlled substance: A Sterling man was arrested Saturday morning after running his car into a gully and trying to walk away from the scene.Binyam Yilma, 27, of Sterling, was located by Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office deputies near Cascades Parkway and Potomac View Road around 2:30 a.m. Saturday. Yilma was arrested and charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, driving under the influence, refusal of a breath test and driving on a suspended or revoked license.
Says Agreeing to a Blood Test, Conditioned on Officers Obtaining a Warrant, Does Not Meet Requirements of Implied Consent Law; No Excuse Seen for Refusing Breath Test
A deputy public defender, who won a rehearing in the Court of Appeal following its Jan. 12 decision upholding a one-year suspension of her driver’s license for failing to submit to a chemical test to determine her blood alcohol content, fared no better on Friday, with the Fourth District’s Div. Two again affirming the trial court’s denial of a writ of administrative mandamus.
The Department of Motor Vehicles properly ordered the license suspension even though motorist Bernice Espinoza agreed to a test of her blood, Justice Art McKinster said in the old and the new opinions in the case, because she conditioned her consent on the California Highway Patrol obtaining a search warrant, and did not give consent to a breath test.
Espinoza—who then worked for the Riverside Public Defender’s Office and now is a deputy public defender in Sonoma County—told officers that she knew the law, and that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in Missouri v. McNeely, they were obliged to obtain a search warrant.
That case, McKinister pointed out, dealt with nonconsensual searches.
In Friday’s opinion, he added a footnote spelling out that a Vehicle Code section “requires a motorist to consent in writing to submit to chemical testing or to a preliminary alcohol screening test, when requested by a peace officer, as a condition of obtaining or renewing a California driver’s license.”
Supreme Court Opinion
In both the Jan. 12 opinion and the little-changed one filed Friday, McKinster made note of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Birchfield v. North Dakota. He wrote:
“[A]s the Supreme Court clearly held in Birchfield, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the police from forcing a motorist to submit to a warrantless breath test incident to his or her arrest, the motorist has no right to refuse to submit to a breath test or to condition his or her submission on the police obtaining a warrant, and the motorist’s refusal to submit to the breath test may be the basis of criminal penalties….In light of that clear holding, we conclude refusal to submit to a breath test incident to arrest may also be the basis of imposing civil penalties under the implied consent law, including suspension or revocation of the motorist’s driver’s license.”
In a new passage, the jurist said:
“Prior to issuance of the decision in Birchfield, we would have agreed with the Department that Espinoza’s refusal to submit to a blood test would have been a sufficient basis for her license suspension, and we would have had no need to address breath tests. But…it is unclear whether the high court would approve of a civil license suspension based solely on a motorist’s refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test. Therefore, we err on the side of caution and affirm the suspension based on Espinoza’s refusal to submit to a breath test.”
References to Crying
The prior opinion said:
“Espinoza’s crying, her initial refusal to get out of her vehicle, her complete refusal to answer field sobriety questions or to perform field sobriety tests, and her repeated requests to be let off with a citation, were additional factors a reasonable officer could properly consider when determining whether there was probable cause to believe Espinoza drove while under the influence of alcohol.”
In the rewritten test, reference to her “crying” was omitted, though the opinion still relates that Espinoza “was crying and very emotional the whole time” an officer spoke with her following the traffic stop. Gonzalez spoke to her.
The case is Espinoza v. Shiomoto, 2017 S.O.S. 1609.
Copyright 2017, Metropolitan News Company
The items cited in the opinion by themselves would not satisfy probable cause for an officer in Colorado to request a test. If you add an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, then there would be.
Driver tries to evade police, crashes into Hillcrest building. A man was seriously hurt when his car plowed into a building in Hillcrest as he tried to elude police Tuesday night.He ran away but didn’t get far before officers arrested him, police said.An officer had stopped the vehicle on Park Boulevard south of Robinson Avenue after the suspect drove past a road-closed sign, police Officer John Buttle said.As the officer walked up to the car, the driver sped away, and a brief pursuit ensued.
The problem with America’s marijuana DUI laws: scienceEVERYONE CAN AGREE THAT DRIVING WHILE STONED IS DANGEROUS, BUT HOW DO STATES REMEDY THE FLAWED SCIENCE BEHIND MARIJUANA DRUG TESTS? You have people that are just baked’ Singh rolled a “fat blunt” before he hit the slopes at Lake Tahoe on a sunny Wednesday morning.By the end of the day, he needed a refill, so he drove to Reno and stopped at one of the local medical marijuana dispensaries. With his Patagonia jacket and bleached-blond man-bun, Singh was eager to head to his hotel and smoke.The only reason he wouldn’t be smoking while driving to the hotel was because he believes Nevada cops are stricter than the ones in the Bay Area.“Yeah, I roll my blunts while I’m driving. I smoke while I’m driving,” said Singh, 26, who owns a logistics business and a “party bus” in Oakland, Calif. “I don’t get high after two blunts. I just get tired and lazy.”With the passage of recreational marijuana in November, Nevada is grappling with questions of how to handle the issue of driving while stoned. And while driving high is still illegal, determining what exactly constitutes “high” is not as easy as it sounds.Just how much pot is an ounce? Watch our explainer:CLOSESince Nevada legalized recreational marijuana, anyone 21 and over can possess up to 1 ounce in-state. How many people actually could look at an ounce and identify it, though? We’re here to help educate you.Jenny Kane/RGJAmong states with legal recreational marijuana, Nevada has the strictest limit on how much of the chemical THC can be in the bloodstream — the weed equivalent of blood-alcohol content — before the driver is considered impaired. Nevada’s limit is even lower than the federal standard for Department of Transportation employees.But catching drugged drivers has become more complicated since recreational marijuana became legal in January across the state.No real-time, accurate test exists. Officers have no accurate Breathalyzer test; blood, urine and saliva tests exist but are imperfect.On top of that, no scientific evidence backs up that a specific amount of marijuana in a person’s system means impairment. That means that limits for marijuana similar to those for alcohol use can be problematic.“You have people that are just baked, they have that Spicoli persona and yet they ace the driving test. You have others who are totally sober and they flunk that blood test,” said Chris Halsor, a former Colorado prosecutor currently serving as Nevada’s temporary traffic safety resource prosecutor.Nevada law says that anyone with 2 nanograms of marijuana in their system while driving is impaired.Critics of the limit point out that it’s so low that people who have smoked marijuana in the distant past but are not impaired could be convicted of DUI under the current law.However, advocates of the limit point out that driving under the influence cases involving marijuana are already difficult to prove and a limit is necessary.Despite the inconsistencies, states must adapt, Halsor said. It’s an issue every state that legalizes marijuana faces, finding varying solutions.“You have to go into every case being able to prove impairment without toxicology,” Halsor said.A legal puzzleThe question of marijuana DUIs has been at the forefront of bipartisan discussions among lawmakers since Nevadans voted in November to legalize recreational marijuana. Anyone 21 and over can possess up to 1 ounce of recreational marijuana, even though it remains a federal offense.Medical marijuana has been legal in Nevada since 2000, and recreational marijuana officially became legal as of Jan. 1, though it is still a misdemeanor to drive under the influence of marijuana and can be a felony depending on circumstances.Just as Nevada has a .08 blood alcohol limit, the state also has a 2 nanograms per milliliter of blood limit for marijuana. Colorado and Washington’s limit is 5 nanograms.Most states and Washington, D.C., that have legalized recreational marijuana — California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Maine, and Alaska — have no set limit. States without set limits also establish that impaired driving is illegal and can be proven by a defendant’s behavior and statements at the time of arrest.“States are trying to figure out what is a fair nanogram limit – what should they use for guidance, and should we have a nanogram limit? Neither is good, right? I don’t think it’s appropriate to institute a rule that doesn’t work. I don’t understand the point of having a limit if that doesn’t tell you what you need to know,” said Dr. Ryan Vandrey, associate professor of behavioral pharmacology research at Johns Hopkins University Medical School in Baltimore. “If you are going to punish people for not being under the influence of a drug that you just legalized, that’s not fair. You can’t take corrective action.”While it would seem logical to model drugged driving laws after existing
66 drivers arrested during DUI checkpoints in Kansas City on St. Patrick’s Day weekend Sobriety checkpoints for second night in a row Saturday led to the arrest of 24 drivers on suspicion of drunken driving. That brought the total number of suspected drunken drivers arrested at checkpoints in Kansas City this St. Patrick’s Day holiday weekend to 66 people. Sobriety checkpoints held in Kansas City for the second day in a row overnight Saturday led to the arrest of 24 drivers on suspicion of drunken driving.That brought the total number of suspected drunken drivers arrested at checkpoints to 66 people for the St. Patrick’s Day holiday weekend.Kansas City police held their sobriety checkpoint at 4040 Main Street checking southbound traffic on Main.ADVERTISINGDuring the checkpoint, police checked 544 cars and arrested 14 drivers on suspicion of violating city and state driving under the influence laws.Police also indicated that there were three traffic and one narcotics violation. They also arrested one fugitive. Another 52 vehicles attempted to avoid the checkpoint.At the same time, the Jackson County Sheriff’s office had a separate checkpoint in the same location checking the northbound traffic on Main.Deputies stopped 590 vehicles and arrested 10 people on suspicion of drunken driving, including two drivers who were repeat offenders and will face felony charges.Deputies also arrested two people on felony possession of controlled substance.During the checkpoint, deputies also checked several taxi cabs, ride sharing cars and party buses with visibly intoxicated passengers.The sheriff’s office issued a special “thank you” to those passengers for selecting a safe ride home.The arrests came on a second night of sobriety checkpoint. On Friday night, the Missouri Highway Patrol, the Jackson County Sheriff’s office and Kansas City Police Department arrested 42 drivers on suspicion of driving under the influence.That checkpoint was at 33rd Street and Southwest Trafficway. Officers stopped 1,314 vehicles at the checkpoint.
If you were arrested on St. Patricks Day and have not retained an attorney yet, you are not protecting your rights.
Police are using new mouth-swab tests to nab drivers under the influence of marijuana and other drugs. Drivers on pot could be detected with new device. San Diego police have a new way to confirm the presence of marijuana and other drugs in impaired drivers — a mouth-swab device that is already being used by police departments in more than a dozen states and is expected to become more popular with the legalization of marijuana.The two Dräger DrugTest 5000 machines, which cost about $6,000 each, were donated by the San Diego Police Foundation last week.ADVERTISINGThey are expected to debut Friday night at the St. Patrick’s Day DUI checkpoint in downtown San Diego.The machine, about the size of a mini bookshelf stereo system, tests for the presence of seven drugs — marijuana, cocaine, opiates, methamphetamine, amphetamine, methadone and benzodiazepines. The device does not read the level of intoxication; drivers would have to take a blood test for that information.Paid Post WHAT’S THIS? Best Casual RestaurantsA Message from The Daily MealThese restaurants may not be temples of gastronomy, but they sure offer some mighty good food.See More“It’s a huge concern of ours with the legalization of marijuana that we’re going to see an increase in impaired drugged driving,” Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman said at a news conference Thursday near the Ingraham Street Bridge in Mission Bay, a common DUI checkpoint spot.California voters approved the use and cultivation of recreational marijuana by passing Proposition 64 in November.To prepare for the effects of the law, a team of San Diego narcotics officers went to Denver to learn how Colorado has fared since recreational marijuana was legalized there and found that the region has seen an uptick in drugged driving, Zimmerman said. The numbers have been growing in California as well.In 2014, 38% of drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in California tested positive for drugs, whether legal or illegal, according to the state Office of Highway Safety. That’s up from 32% the year before.“We want to get these impaired drivers off the streets,” the chief said.The Dräger 5000 premiered in the U.S. in 2009 and is used by police in places such as Los Angeles, New York, Arizona and Nevada, as well as in other countries such as Australia, Belgium and Germany.In San Diego, the machines will be used primarily at DUI checkpoints for now.Like the handheld preliminary alcohol screening devices frequently used in the field to test for booze, drivers cannot be forced to submit to a Dräger 5000 test.Officers trained to recognize the symptoms of drug impairment will first look for various indicators that a driver is high, such as an unsafe driving maneuver, bloodshot eyes, the odor of marijuana and blank stares, San Diego police Officer Emilio Ramirez said. Once there is ample suspicion of drug use, the officer can then request to perform field sobriety tests or for a driver to take the Dräger 5000 test.If the driver refuses at that point, the officer can force the person to submit to a blood test.To use the machine, the driver is handed a mouth swab and instructed to run it around the inside of the mouth for up to four minutes. The swab is then placed into the machine, along with a vial of testing solution, and the machine does its work. It takes about six to eight minutes for results to print out.A positive result will likely send the driver to a police phlebotomist for a blood test to determine precise drug levels.If the mouth swab test is negative but the officer still has a suspicion of impairment, then a blood draw might still be mandated, because the Dräger 5000 measures for only seven kinds of narcotics, Ramirez said.When it comes to detecting marijuana, the machine only looks for the active THC compound that is responsible for the high. That component, delta-9 THC, can stay in a person’s system for a few hours or longer, depending on how the cannabis was ingested and how the person’s body processes the drug. The machine does not look for the inactive THC compounds, which can stay in a person’s system for weeks, police said.In other words, if someone legally smoked marijuana two days ago, there would be nothing to worry about if tested on the machine.Evidence from the Dräger 5000 will be admissible in court, although the machine is not expected to have a notable effect on how drugged driving cases are prosecuted, attorneys said.Under California law, there is no legal threshold for the amount of drugs in a person’s system when it comes to driving. Alcohol cases are more black and white — a .08% blood-alcohol level or higher is illegal.Officers and prosecutors have instead had to rely on subjective measures and observations to build a case of drug impairment, which can be different from person to person.
Why does it flash by so quickly. Too fast if it is early in the AM. I knew the word today and how to pronounce it. But if I did not, the word was not spoken and I may have not been able to learn the pronuciation. Also it was the same word on 4/1 and 4/3. April fools?
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope arrested on suspicion of DUI: Detroit Pistons guard Kentavious Caldwell-Pope was arrested early Wednesday morning in Auburn Hills, Michigan, on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.Caldwell-Pope, 24, was pulled over for driving 45 mph in a 25 mph zone, according to Auburn Hills police. He was arrested after a field sobriety test and taken to the police station, where a breathalyzer test showed a blood-alcohol level of 0.08, which is the legal limit.Caldwell-Pope was cited for operating while intoxicated and released.The arrest came after the Pistons’ 97-96 loss to the Miami Heat on Tuesday night. Caldwell-Pope played in Thursday night’s 90-89 victory over the Brooklyn Nets, finishing with 12 points.He declined to speak with reporters before the Pistons’ game on Friday night in Milwaukee.Coach Stan Van Gundy said the team was aware of the situation. He said Caldwell-Pope is a “high character” player, and that the team would “let things run its course.”Caldwell-Pope is averaging 14.1 points and 3.2 rebounds per game this season.
Driver accused of smoking pot before taking bus full of students on field trip: CHELMSFORD, MA (WHDH) – A bus driver has been arrested on several charges after police said he operated a school bus while under the influence of drugs.School administrators called officers Tuesday after high school students reported a strange odor on a bus they were boarding for a field trip, Chelmsford police said. A teacher notified a principal, who reportedly smelled marijuana after boarding the bus.Police said about 50 Students were taken off the bus and officers determined that the bus driver, 63-year-old Ali Mahfuz, of Nashua, New Hampshire, was under the influence of marijuana.Mahfuz was charged with operating under the influence, negligent operation, and reckless endangerment.Mahfuz told 7News that the students would have been in danger if he had driven the school bus. Police said he had just finished a route for Greater Lowell Technical High School before arriving in Chelmsford.Police officials said that they were “astonished” by Mahfuz’s “lack of common sense” and poor decision making.The bus driver that employs Mahfuz , North Reading Transportation, Inc., is cooperating with authorities.A new bus driver was sent to the school to take the students on the field trip.Mahfuz was arraigned Tuesday afternoon in Lowell District Court. Prosecutors say Mahfuz admitted to smoking marijuana.He was released on personal recognizance.
We have extensive experience in defending DUID charges.
Greenfield superintendent charged with OVI; case pending: Greenfield Village Exempted Schools Superintendent Joe Wills was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence last month in Clinton County.Clinton County Municipal Court records indicate Wills was charged at 11:28 p.m. on Saturday, Feb. 18, by the Ohio Highway Patrol. He was also cited for speeding. He was arraigned on Feb. 22. A final pretrial hearing is set for April 26, according to court documents.Wills is represented by Cincinnati defense attorney Edward Perry, who has filed a jury demand, a request for a bill of particulars and discovery, a motion to preserve all evidence, including audio and video evidence, and an appeal of license suspension, according to court documents. A dispatcher with the Ohio Highway Patrol post in Wilmington said Saturday that the local post could not provide information on the traffic stop, and that all requests had to go through the patrol’s public affairs office in Columbus, contrary to The Times-Gazette’s usual experience seeking information from the patrol.Wills has been superintendent at Greenfield since 2013. He came to that post after serving since 2005 as the personnel director for the Southern Ohio Educational Service Center/Adams County Ohio Valley School District. Prior to that, Wills served at Lynchburg-Clay Local School District as a physical education teacher. As varsity basketball coach, Wills led the Mustangs to the final four in the state tournament in 1993. Within the L-C district, Wills moved on to athletic director and then assistant principal before becoming the principal of the middle school.Reached Saturday, Wills said he did not want to comment while the case is pending.