The Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor, Inc.

Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor

San Francisco DUI Arrest Evidence

415-496-2034

Evidence gathered in a San Francisco DUI case by officers is somewhat standard and can be sorted into six categories of evidence.

Driving Symptoms:

This category is in effect if there was no traffic accident involved. Driving symptoms include: weaving, line straddling, excessive or unsafe lane changes, and erratic driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed a list of twenty different driving patterns for officers to look for in an intoxicated driver. Speeding, which is often mistaken as one of these driving patterns, is not on this list because it requires quick reflexes, coordination, and judgment.

Personal Appearance and Behavior:

As soon as the officer approaches the vehicle, he will be looking for any indications of possible intoxication. Physical signs of intoxication include bloodshot eyes, a flushed or pale face, and alcohol smell coming from the breath. Other signals of intoxication are also slurring words, having trouble handling a purse or wallet, difficulty keeping balance, and inability to follow directions properly. It is also possible that some police officers will include some of these signs and signals in their arrest report even thought the symptom was not present.

Field Sobriety Tests:

Also known as FSTs, there are approximately twelve commonly used field sobriety tests by officers. These tests include:

• Walk-and-turn
• Finger-to-nose
• Horizontal gaze nystagmus (following a small object, such as a finger or pen, from side-to-side with your eyes)
• One-leg stand
• The Rhomberg test (also known as modified position of attention)
• Hand-pat
• Reciting the alphabet
• Fingers-to-thumb

Submitting to one or more of these tests in not mandated by law and can be refused without any legal consequences to the suspect. A study by the NHTSA showed that only three of these FSTs are effective when attempting to determine if the suspect is intoxicated (one-leg stand, walk-and-turn, and nystagmus). Police agencies throughout the country have increasingly adopted these three FSTs as part of their standardized series of tests. However officers in San Francisco have been reluctant to add any of these three tests to their routine.

PAS Tests:

A Preliminary Alcohol Screening unit, PAS for short, is a small handheld device used by officers.PAS units were developed as an aide which gives an officer a rough estimate of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. In comparison to the standard breathalyzer test, PAS units are unreliable and primitive. This has not stopped judges from increasingly accept the results from these units as evidence in trials. In some instances the PAS is the only chemical evidence available. It should also be noted that submitting to a PAS is not mandatory unless the suspect is under 21 years of age. There are no legal ramifications is the suspect refuses the test.

Chemical Tests:

In California, chemical tests are in reference to breath or blood tests. Urine analysis is typically used when neither breath nor blood test samples are available. There are a number of different brands and models of breath machines used by police agencies; but they all are susceptible to a number of problems and can have unreliable results.

One factor that can cause unreliable results is the dependency of these machines on computers. These computers make the assumption that the suspect is of average height, weight, physiology, and metabolism. The reality is that each subject varies and the machines to not take that into account. The machine to not, contrary to belief, measure alcohol; the technology identifies the presence of a methyl group in the compound's molecular structure. Thousands of compounds are contained in this group, only several hundred can be found on the breath.

While blood tests are more accurate, there are still issues can be present. Some of the more common issues are fermentation of the blood sample, coagulation, and lack of sterilization

Incriminating Statements:

Even thought a Miranda warning does not have to be given until after the arrest has officially been made, the officer can still ask incriminating questions during his investigation. Any answers to his questions will be admissible as evidence in court. After the arrest, any incriminating statements made during interrogations, without a waiver and admonition, are inadmissible. However, statements made such as I might have had too much to drink, can be stated without interrogation and could be admissible in court, even without a Miranda warning. Refusal to submit to a breath or blood test can be used in trial as incriminating evidence, which can suggest to a jury a consciousness of guilt.