Finding a Good DUI Lawyer On-Line is Tough

You cannot count on Google anymore. Google use to post the top DUI Lawyers by their proven content in their websites. The lawyer with the most useful and current information to the searcher ranked in the highest area to help the person in need of quality information. However, today, Google sells out for "Location over Quality". While it is true that Google continues to show and rank the quality information in the organic search, for more profit, Google has placed "Local Maps" at the top of the page which moves "Quality" to the bottom. So, the searcher now gets a lawyer that is closer who may have less experience without ever seeing the lawyer with years of success and experience just for speed sake of searching.
If you want the best, you must go to the organic search area and ignore the closest. Closest may be find for a fast pizza or quick shopping experience, but all doctors and lawyers who can impact your life dramatically for the rest of your life are not equal, so need to spend a little more time to go to the organic search area for the best. This is especially true when using a phone to search for a doctor or lawyer. I just looked up lawyers in Los Angeles, CA and found local listings showing over organic searches and then compared; no one wants to spend that much time, but the organic search revealed quality lawyers hidden at the bottom of the page, and Locals came up at the top, and some of them only had 3 years of experience. Don't let Google's blunder at to your troubles if you have a medical or legal problem. Look at the organic, and then send Google a message to keep the local stuff for fast food, not something that will effect the rest of your life.

Another Hollywood Star Over Charged

David Cassidy arrested in Florida for DUI. Cops say he swerved and failed field sobriety tests; there is a surprise. Just about every police report I have ever seen has the suspect swerving, and usually in a serpentine manner per training in the police academy, and fails the subjective (officer opinion) field sobriety tests. Then the press writes, and the star pled not guilty, of course. Now there is a fair and impartial reporter. Where are the videos of driving and field sobriety test? Where are the chemical results? I would like to thank the reporter for showing the rest of the country that he is not just looking to show-off by reporting with a slant to GUILT against another star before all the facts are in. Here is the biased story without the video of driving, or field sobriety tests, or chemical results. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/11/05/scandalous-male-star-s/#content
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
number1duioffice.com

San Francisco PD Give Improper Breath Tests

California state law, California Code of Regulations, Title 17, requires that every laboratory have an "Approved Protocol" on file with the State Department of Health Services. The San Francisco Police Department, who earlier this year was shown by the San Francisco Public Defender to be hiding information of criminal actions by police officers, which prevented the defendant to show the bias of police officers. Now, it has come to the attention of defense lawyers that the San Francisco Police Department's (SFPD) Crime Laboratory of hiding and not disclosing to the defense that the SFPD has not received an approved protocol to train operators, either police officers or anyone else that will give a breath test, and is testing suspected DUI drivers on their Intoxilyzer 5000, series 6800EN, that has not been authorized by the State of California. There is even a letter from Ms. Lois Woodworth who is now in-charge of the breath testing since the retirement of Ms. Madden, who has been charged with stealing cocaine from the crime lab for personal use, to Mr. Clay Larson of the Department of Health Services stating she did not have time to make up a protocol for the breath testing machine used in all DUI arrests. Yet, the SFPD does not tell the defense attorneys, or the San Francisco Public Defender's office that they have not been approved by the State to use these machines in testing suspects arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). This is a violation of State law of operation of the machines, and worse a violation of the Defendant's Constitutional Rights to all evidence in the possession of the Prosecutor who has a duty to turn over all evidence, especially exculpatory evidence, that of credibility, for the defense in all criminal cases. Who knows how many defendant's have been denied this Constitutional information and been found guilty from this outrageous illegal conduct? This is why you should be hiring an experienced and highly respected DUI lawyer to represent you in your case. See www.duioffice.com

Constituional Rights on Breath Testing Denied in CA

In California in 2009, the California Supreme Court in a 7 to 0 decision said that a defendant charged with a "Generic DUI", that is being impaired by alcohol while driving (Vehicle Code Section 23152(a), has the right to bring in evidence that his or her Partition Ratio may not be the average that is set in all breath testing machines of 2100:1. If a person's Partition Ratio is higher than 2100:1, then their true blood alcohol would be higher and they would be impaired; that could run all the way up to 2950:1 on the high side. On the other hand, should a person's Partition Ratio be lower, which can be as low as 800:1, the person may not be impaired. For example, lets say the person's test results show breath results of .10 and .10; two tests are required. The machine is set for 2100:1 so that would be an average reading. But, everyone isn't average. Let's say the person tested had a Partition Ratio of 1000:1. We would multiple the 1000 by the result of .10 which would equal 100, and then divide that by what the machine is set at as an average which is 2100 which would tell us that the real blood alcohol level is .047, and you can't be impaired by alcohol at that level. But, the trial judges are ignoring the Supreme Court Case of People v McNeal, which means they are ignoring the California Supreme Court case law, and the United States Constitution which demands that a person be allowed to present evidence in his own behalf at trial.
Why are the trial judges doing this? Because they have decided they know better that the defendant is guilty, and without this evidence they will be convicted. They also know that most defendant's can barely afford the cost of a trial, let alone an appeal. The judges in many cases won't even force or allow the defense to cross-examine toxicologist who are suppose to know this material if they truly experts, about Partition Ratio. Now there is justice. U.S. Supreme Court case law rulings ignored, the U.S. Constitution ignored, the California Supreme Court case law ignored, and the defendant was allegedly given a fair trial. Worse yet, nothing happens to the judges who ignore these rules, nothing. My advise, get a good lawyer that knows Constitutional law and be prepared to appeal in to the Federal Court.

SFPD CRIME LAB WITHHOULDS INFO TO DEFENSE

The San Francisco Police Department's Crime Laboratory operates the Intoxilyzer breath testing device, out-dated model 5000, series 6800EN, and they do it illegally. But, then who will arrest the cops, right!!!! A few years ago, with the help of the Los Angeles County Sheriff and some other very selected crime labs, they put a special committee together headed by a judge, close to all the convictions and with no real in-put from the defense, to allow the crime labs to be in-charge of themselves, taking away the authority of the State of California to enforce violations of the County Crime Labs. Now, this was a "BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT, I MEAN BRILLIANT MOVE". Why not let the murders set rules for their crimes and take that away from the State as well. They said we know best and this is just too costly for us to comply with rules we don't think help convict people, and who cares about innocent people's rights. Do you believe there was a judge in-charge of this panel that approved this idiotic rule.
Well, there are plenty of violations without penalties today because the State Department that oversees this has no POWER to do anything thanks to this committee. In fact, the San Francisco Police Department's Crime Laboratory, you know the one where the former Supervisor is being charged for taking cocaine and using it for personal use, does not have an approved protocol for training operators to use the breath testing machines from the State which is a requirement to use the machines in the first place. And, they have not had one since they got the machines and they failed to disclose this in every DUI case they have done. I guess the people arrested for DUI who may be innocent will never know because the SFPD is testing illegally knowing they don't have to answer to anyone. Isn't great to be the law so you can ignore it? Check out www.duioffice.com

Many Judges In California Denying Supreme Court

In 2009, the California Supreme Court decided a case called People v. McNeal with a "Unanimous 7 to 0 Ruling" stating that the defendant in a DUI criminal trial had the absolute right to present evidence of Partition Ratio if the District Attorney or City Attorney charged the defendant with a "Generic DUI Charge". A generic charge is California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) driving while impaired by alcohol. This does not apply to the second (2nd ) charge of 23152(b), because the law says breath or blood result, but comes from the same breath test for purpose of impairment.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, many District Attorneys or City Attorneys, have dropped a jury instruction to attempt to get around this ruling, and the trial courts have assisted them, the Prosecutors, by not allowing the defense to raise this issue if the jury instruction is not given. Some trial judges have taken it upon themselves to drop the jury instruction to prevent the defense, but dropping the jury instruction does not relieve the Court of the duty to allow the defendant the right to present this evidence, and therefore, the trial court judges are denying the law of the State of California and the California Supreme Court, not to mention the Defendant's Federal Constitutional Rights to present evidence in his own behalf. But it gets worse.
Some trial court judges allow the Prosecution's Toxicologist to talk about how the machine works and is accurate in the breath testing of the defendant. The accepts this person as an "Expert" in the field of breath testing. However, when the Prosecution's Expert refuses to talk about Partition Ratio saying they don't know anything about any difference in Partition Ratios only the 2100:1, the trial judge will not allow the defense lawyer to cross-examine the Expert as to the different possibilities despite the California Supreme Court ruling and Federal Constitutional Right of the Defendant. Some judges in San Francisco have actually shifted the burden to the Defendant requiring he show that his Partition Ratio is different than 2100:1, another Federal Constitutional Right violation. This is why you should be prepared to have patience and take your case into the Federal Court on appeal if your lawyer is denied this right to protect you on this issue during your trial. As a general rule, the appeal to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court where you had your trial is just the same bunch of trial court judges overseeing themselves. This is kind of like the Fox guarding the chicken house. And, the District Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of the State of California do not have to hear your case, so it is imperative that your lawyer during the trial OBJECT ON FEDERAL GROUNDS to the denial of Due Process amongst other things when denied this area of defense.
There are many DUI lawyers advertising inexpensive rates as low as $700 or $1000 dollars, so be careful when you hire a lawyer for a cheap fee. It may seem like a good idea at the time, but when your trial is over, if they will even take you to trial, you will then quickly understand why a lawyer that charged double that fee was worth the money. Your lawyer needs to be able to fight for you, not just agree with the Prosecutor and be afraid of fighting with the Judge to protect your Constitutional Rights, and by fighting with the judge, I mean KNOW THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND SUPPORTING CASES to protect you. Get a free consultation at www.duioffice.com

Breath Machine Errors That Convict You

In California, all breath testing devices are per-set in the software by law, at California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 1220.4(f) at 2,100 milliliters of breath to be converted to 1 milliliter of blood. This is based off the average person's breath with alcohol of 2100 to 1 which is written as 2100:1. True value of your alcohol level is in the blood which is what travels through your brain and impairs you when a sufficient amount of alcohol is present. And, therein is the problem. Everyone does not have what is known as a Partition Ratio of 2100:1. If you are higher than 2100:1, then your true blood alcohol level is higher, and the greater the chance you are impaired, but if your Partition Ratio is lower than 2100:1, then there may not be sufficient alcohol in the blood to make you impaired despite what the police officer and breath device say. For example, let's say you took a breath test after being arrested for DUI in California, and your printed results were .12/.12. With these results on their face, you would be guilty. But if your Partition Ratio was 1000:1 your true blood alcohol level would be 0.05, and thus, you would not be impaired. It is a flaw in the breath testing device that assumes your Partition Ratio is 2100:1. In fact, in most cases the Prosecution has NO way of really knowing what your Partition Ratio was at the time of testing. This is all the more reason for you to look for and hire a truly qualified DUI lawyer if arrested in California and charged with a DUI. See www.duioffice.com