We'll help you find the right solution for your needs
Does this sound like your topic?
what happens if I am stopped by the police while DUI and summoned to court but I failed to appear?
A bench warrant will be issued for your arrest. You should see a qualified attorney as soon as possible and have him appear in the issuing court, probably accompanied by yourself, and request that the warrant be recalled and the arraignment rescheduled.See question
20 year old first offender bac .21
You are legally required to complete your DUI driver education program before your California driver's license will be reinstated.See question
Car broke down on my way to amusement park with friends. 105 degree heat with no water but a flask in the trunk. We were waiting for about two hours. I had no idea that a Cop needed to be there before we could leave so I drank it. Threw the bottle...
Yes, you should fight the charge. Although there is evidence of intoxication there does not appear to be any evidence -- witnesses or circumstantial -- that you actually drove the vehicle. If you can't afford an attorney, get a deputy public defender appointed to represent you.See question
I was driving one morning and suffered a grand mal seizure (I have suffered from seizures for 0ver 10 years and am on medication). I was not taking my medication at the time and the seizure caused me to pass out and my car ended up on the side of...
I agree with attorney John Kaman...
The primary difficulties in prosecuting a case of DUI drugs is proving (1) the drugs were actively present in the system, (2) the amount was sufficient to impair driving, (3 the driver was in fact impaired -- to the degree he was unable to operate a vehicle safely. These are problems primarily because it is generally very difficult to determine what levels of the many different drugs are necessary to achieve impairment, as well as whether the driver was, in fact, impaired (by the drug, not as perhaps in your case, by the results of a seizure).
Impairment by drugs is not a matter for which most cops are prepared to recognize or testify to -- which is why in recent years the DRE (drug recognition evaluation) training and certification program was developed by the Los Angeles Police Department and has spread across the country. Absent this specialized training in recognition of drug-caused impairment (and very few cops are DRE-certified), the arresting officer is highly subject to knowledgeable cross-examination.See question
I didn't have anything in the car but why didn't the second officer put his name on my ticket or any where? The officer left handcuffs in front the whole night said he never does that ever. I was aware of everything. He said i was swerving but the...
If I understand the facts, the officer cannot legally search your car -- other than objects in plain sight -- without an arrest. The purpose of field sobriety tests is exactly that: to help determine whether probable cause exists....As for swerving, this "observation" is widely abused by the police, as all cars swerve within lanes to some degree, and often more pronounces swerving is due to "black-and-white fever" -- taking your eyes off the road while watching the police car in the rear view mirror...The arrest report should show how you performed on the FSTs; if it doesn't, the officer is subject to attack in his testimony.See question
i was hit by a drunk driver 1 year ago,well to make a long story short,i ended up settling out of court.well come to find out the guy wasn't even charge with a dui and there were witnesses that had been following him before he hit me and he had be...
It's highly unlikely that you have a law suit against the city or county for many reasons.
First, it's difficult to establish negligence in the performance of investigative duties. Second, most jurisdictions exempt discretionary functions to civil liability. Third, this is a discretionary decision to arrest someone else; discretionary governmental decisions are rarely subject to civil liability. Fourth, you are not the party directly affected; you are only indirectly affected by the possible evdientiary value of a conviction. Fifth, it would be exrtremely difficult to prove that (1) the person would have been convicted, and (2) that conviction would have resulted in a higher civil recovery for you.See question