I just finished a case where the state trooper put the client in front of the CLIENT’S car for the SFSTS. Huh??? The client was tall enough that you could see some of the movement of the head and torso. Otherwise, you might as well have turned the camera off. The client wanted to take the plea to the lesser offense so a jury never got to see this scam. I think it operates the same as if they intentionally destroyed a properly recorded videotape, and intend to make that argument to a judge or jury when the next occasion arises. I don’t think juries are going to like any citizen being treated in such an unfair way by the police. If you have nothing to hide in how you perform your duties, then videotape what you are doing! I look forward to getting another shot at this state trooper.
Posts Tagged ‘DUI’
Videotape Scam
Sunday, December 18th, 2011State trooper testimony that defied logic and the Manual
Thursday, June 23rd, 2011I will spare this trooper the embarrassment of mentioning his name. The lawyers who read this know who I am talking about. This trooper is the exception, not the Rule. He makes a DUI arrest every other day. He screws up the SFSTs every other day! In a cross-examination that bordered on the ridiculous, accompanied by the video of the entire episode, at the conclusion of which the trial judge said that my client “did not do one thing wrong” on the SFSTs, the trooper just dug his heels in and kept getting his ass kicked harder and harder. Not one of these tests was administered correctly. The trooper testified that you can check if eyes TRACK EVENLY by just placing the stimulus motionless in front of the subject. The judge who became quite amused and who was at one time the elected State’s Attorney for his county, asked wouldn’t tracking require movement? No, opined this experienced officer who claims he has gone through not 40, but 80 hours of SFST training and arrested thousands, yes thousands of DUI suspects. When showed the most recent SFST Manual (4/09), he claimed he got an even newer one dated 6/09, that changed the 4/09 SFST requirements. I will subpoena this the next time, since he is the only person on the planet that has this Manual. It takes years to revise them, but they did a new one for him 2 months after publishing the 4/09 Manual. He also claimed that parallel to the ground meant the foot was parallel, but the toes were pointed upwards. His demonstration had his foot and toes pointing upwards, and that is what he told my client to do. Since for most of us, our toes are connected to our feet, trying to bend the toes 90 degrees away from your foot for 30 seconds is a slight bit uncomfortable. My client managed it with both his foot and toes pointed skyward for 44 seconds without a flaw, although the trooper saw him move his arms out, even though the rest of us could not see it on the tape. At the conclusion of this blood bath and not guilty verdict, and outside of courthouse, I told him he needed to find a third school where he could learn the correct way to do the tests. I was not shocked when he continued to claim he knew what he was doing. I told him that was fine, I’d just keep beating him. He was most unhappy, in fact he was really pissed off. Arrogant, nasty, and stupid are not good characteristics for police, lawyers, or judges, or probably any other profession. Although the brass at the Maryland State Police love this guy, they should focus on the rest of the troopers I encounter in court every day, who are conscientious and care about giving each arrestee a fair shake. They are out there for public safety, not Agency acclaim. And to top it off, he had another video-tape case DUI that the State dropped because the probable cause he wrote for the stop was not what the tape showed. Maybe I’ll get retained by his next arrestee, so I can see if he has accepted the retraining course I gave him, or if he remains just as dumb and arrogant as he was a couple days ago.
Want to get drunk and sit in your car in your driveway with the engine on……
Thursday, June 23rd, 2011be prepared to be asked to take a breath test. Today the Court of Appeals eliminated the defense to the requirement for taking of a breath test, that you be found driving or in actual control of the vehicle on a highway or private property used by the public in general. The exact language is :
“That provision does not limit the “implied consent” to taking a test to those occasions when the police officer stops a driver on a highway or private property used by the public. Rather, that provision merely declares that any person who avails himself or herself of the privilege to drive on Maryland’s public roads or publicly-used private property in general is deemed to have consented to take a test, if detained on suspicion of driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol, regardless of whether the stop was on a highway, private property used by the public, or purely private property. Because the actual location of the stop is immaterial under T.R. § 16-205.1, the MVA need not present evidence of the location, and the Administrative Law Judge need not make a finding of it before suspending a person’s driver’s license.”
The defense was nearly eliminated in the “Ambrose” case, where the court interpreted the term “private property used by the public in general.” Today they said the language is not a limitation, but just descriptive of what a driving privilege means. I won a lot of MVA Hearings based on my and the ALJ’s misinterpretation of this clause. Not anymore.
“Not one of my better Field Sobriety Days”
Monday, June 6th, 2011Thus spoke the police officer at an MVA Hearing last week. I will have the tape of this admission for the jury trial in Baltimore City. He condensed the HGN exam, because he sometimes does that. He admitted he was not supposed to. Wrong instructions on the Walk and Turn. The best explanation was for the 1 leg stand where he pointed his toe skyward (instead of parallel to the ground), but said to hold it straight out. My client watched him and held his foot the same way- the WRONG WAY. He claimed he had to demonstrate it incorrectly because he was so close to my client that it was for officer safety because he could have been attacked. This was after he searched him, and had 2 other officers standing there watching, and who could have provided “officer safety.” My client is 1/2 of his size. He also screwed up the breath test procedure. I LOST the MVA Hearing because the ALJ said none of it mattered, even though the breath test results were compromised. However, these matter in Court. I was going to hire an SFSTs’ expert for trial, but with the officer’s “confession” there is no need to waste the client’s limited resources. My client’s driver was in the hallway, and when the officer left the hearing room, he and the breath technician were talking about that F…ing, etc…. I was glad to hear that they appreciated my legal work. The breath technician and his involvement in a previous dismissed case is a story for another day.
Blasi case and odor of alcohol and SFSTs Instructions
Friday, February 18th, 2011Pay attention to the testimony!!!! A police officer yesterday may have confused himself when he recited the order in which he confronted my client and asked her to perform the Field Tests. He testified that he the car was lawfully parked and after he detected an odor of alcohol, he ordered her out to do the tests. Once outside the vehicle he detected the clues that would have warranted asking her to take the Field Tests. The odor of alcohol is not enough or every person leaving a bar would be walking the imaginary line. The judge had no choice but to suppress everything. I am a note taker- always have been. It allows me to argue that I wrote it down in this order and it makes it easy for the judge to review his notes or if no notes, agree that the officer testified in that order. AND NO CROSS-EXAMINATION!!!! Don’t lose a case because you are just dying to ask questions.
Had I lost the Motion the Judge was prepared to grant the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because the police officer never testified about the instructions he gave my client on each Field Test. He knew what the instructions were supposed to be but he could not take judicial notice that the police officer gave them. The Sate suggested I could have asked, I don’t bake their pie. The client did residential treatment and some Aftercare, so her family and I hope this is the only time she has to visit with me.
Maryland DUI Attorney- Maryland Super Lawyers 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Criminal Defense: DUI/DWI
Thursday, May 28th, 2009If you are charged with a DUI, please call our office at 866-435-2795 immediately as there are certain critical time limits for your case.
Maryland Super Lawyer 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Criminal Defense DUI/DWI
Member National College for DUI Defense http://www.ncdd.com