arrests in Orange County follow a typical routine; a traffic stop or stop at a DUI checkpoint followed by a quick assessment of the
driver by the police officer, followed by a battery of field sobriety tests,
then a voluntary breath test, and finally the arrest of the driver by the
officer. The driver is then given the choice of a blood test or breath test to
determine their blood-alcohol level. And, in almost all cases, the driver’s DUI Lawyer in Orange County is not present for all of this. In this typical
scenario the officer has obtained all the evidence needed without ever
interrogating the suspect. But sometimes, it aint so easy for the police. Sometimes
there just isn’t enough evidence to get a conviction for DUI in court. In these
cases, the officer will try to get the driver to fill in the missing evidence
with a confession.
For
instance, if the police arrive on scene of a DUI investigation and the driver
has exited the car before the officer could identify WHO was driving, then the
police may have a problem proving in a DUI trial that the defendant did the
driving. So they will most likely try to get the driver to admit to driving. Before
the police can use a confession obtained in a “custodial interrogation”, the
police must first advise the driver of their right not to answer questions and
to have an Orange County DUI Attorney present. Often, in their zeal to get
the defendant to admit to driving, the police will attempt to threaten harsh
punishment or promise leniency if the defendant “do the right thing” and admit
to drunk driving.
instance, if the police arrive on scene of a DUI investigation and the driver
has exited the car before the officer could identify WHO was driving, then the
police may have a problem proving in a DUI trial that the defendant did the
driving. So they will most likely try to get the driver to admit to driving. Before
the police can use a confession obtained in a “custodial interrogation”, the
police must first advise the driver of their right not to answer questions and
to have an Orange County DUI Attorney present. Often, in their zeal to get
the defendant to admit to driving, the police will attempt to threaten harsh
punishment or promise leniency if the defendant “do the right thing” and admit
to drunk driving.
However, the
U.S. Supreme Court in Bram v. U.S. (1897) 542 18 S.Ct.
183, held that it is not proper for police to expressly or impliedly suggest
that if the defendant will make a statement, they will be shown leniency or
some other substantial benefit. They found that it is just as improper to
suggest that by exercising their right to their criminal defense lawyer or to
remain silent they will be subjected to harsher treatment or any other
substantial detriment. The Supreme Court held in Brady v. U.S. (1970) 397
US. 742 that even a “mild promise” of lenience will invalidate a defendant’s
statement because, when a person is in this position, they are especially
sensitive to inducement.
U.S. Supreme Court in Bram v. U.S. (1897) 542 18 S.Ct.
183, held that it is not proper for police to expressly or impliedly suggest
that if the defendant will make a statement, they will be shown leniency or
some other substantial benefit. They found that it is just as improper to
suggest that by exercising their right to their criminal defense lawyer or to
remain silent they will be subjected to harsher treatment or any other
substantial detriment. The Supreme Court held in Brady v. U.S. (1970) 397
US. 742 that even a “mild promise” of lenience will invalidate a defendant’s
statement because, when a person is in this position, they are especially
sensitive to inducement.
This idea
that a DUI suspect being interrogated must VOLUNTARILY give statements was
restated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Brommel (1993)
56 Cal.2d 629 when they held “any promise made by an officer or person in
authority, express or clearly implied, of leniency or advantage for the
accused, if it is a motivating cause of the confession, is sufficient to
invalidate the confession and to make it involuntary and inadmissible as a
matter or law.” Thus, DUI defense Attorneys in Orange
County will look closely an any DUI confession and, if there is evidence that
threat or promise was made by the police, will bring a motion to have the confession
suppressed and rendered inadmissible.
that a DUI suspect being interrogated must VOLUNTARILY give statements was
restated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Brommel (1993)
56 Cal.2d 629 when they held “any promise made by an officer or person in
authority, express or clearly implied, of leniency or advantage for the
accused, if it is a motivating cause of the confession, is sufficient to
invalidate the confession and to make it involuntary and inadmissible as a
matter or law.” Thus, DUI defense Attorneys in Orange
County will look closely an any DUI confession and, if there is evidence that
threat or promise was made by the police, will bring a motion to have the confession
suppressed and rendered inadmissible.
If you have
questions about a DUI arrest, or any other criminal matter, call The Law
Offices of EJ Stopyro at (949) 559-5500 today for a free and confidential
consultation with an experienced Orange County DUI and criminal defense
attorney. You can also visit our website at www.ejesquire.com.
Our offices are at 320725 Camino Capistrano, 2nd floor, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675 and at 1901 Newport Blvd., Suite 350, Costa Mesa, CA
92627.
questions about a DUI arrest, or any other criminal matter, call The Law
Offices of EJ Stopyro at (949) 559-5500 today for a free and confidential
consultation with an experienced Orange County DUI and criminal defense
attorney. You can also visit our website at www.ejesquire.com.
Our offices are at 320725 Camino Capistrano, 2nd floor, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675 and at 1901 Newport Blvd., Suite 350, Costa Mesa, CA
92627.
No comments:
Post a Comment