Court of Appeal expands warrantless DUI motorist blood draws

California's second highest court on Thursday made it easier for police to forcibly draw blood from motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). In coming to this conclusion, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision in seven Alameda County cases brought before the Superior Court's Appellate Division where drivers had their blood taken at a jail facility.

Though the drivers in these cases consented to the blood draw, the circumstances raised enough of a Fourth Amendment consideration for the lower court to find the government's actions illegal. In particular, the judges did not believe that a police officer was qualified to testify that the blood draw was performed by a medical professional in an appropriate manner, as required under state law. The Court of Appeal stepped in to set a precedent restoring the state's ability to perform warrantless blood draws in a wider variety of circumstances.

"We concur with the reasoning, implicit in Sugarman, that the testimony of a police officer, when he or she is a percipient witness to the blood draw in question, may properly be considered in evaluating whether that blood draw was conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner," Judge Sandra L. Margulies wrote for the three-judge Court of Appeal panel.

The panel insisted that the state should not be forced to produce expert witnesses to testify that the blood draw met legal requirements. In each of the cases at hand, a police officer testified that the blood was drawn by someone the officer believed was a trained blood technician and that the draws were performed in a routine manner.

"In sum, under the totality of the circumstances presented, in each case we conclude the officer's un-rebutted testimony shows the blood draw did not expose the defendant to an unjustified element of personal risk of infection or pain and was not performed in a manner which created any undue harm or risk to defendant," Judge Margulies wrote. "In sum, we are persuaded the blood draws in these cases were conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner."
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/ca-blooddraw.pdf

Police officer charged for allegedly faking DUI reports:

Utah - A former Unified Police Department officer has been charged with faking DUI reports and working overlapping shifts to steal taxpayer money.
Stephen Hall, 43, retired amid an internal investigation that allegedly found he had faked reports while working grant-funded overtime shifts, sometimes at the same time he was clocked-in at other jobs.From 2010 and 2013, Hall was double-paid about $14,100, according to charges filed against him in 3rd District Court on Monday.
Prosecutors charged him with second-degree felony theft by deception and three counts of class B misdemeanor falsification or alteration of government record. While the misdemeanors carry a maximum penalty of six months in jail, if he is convicted for theft, Hall could spend up to 15 years in prison.
Hall — a 20-year veteran with UPD — retired in mid-May, during the middle of the investigation, said spokesman Jared Richardson.
Unified police have the option to work federal and state grant-funded overtime shifts specifically for DUI and underage drinking enforcement. During 2012, Hall reportedly made 27 DUI arrests, issued 398 citations and impounded 27 vehicles during such shifts, according to the charges. But the police records did not match up: they showed only one DUI arrest and four citations.
Supervisors also found that Hall had made up 50 cases, filled out with fictitious information and listed work he did not actually perform, the charges add.
After comparing all of Hall’s time cards, an investigating lieutenant discovered that Hall got paid for working grant shifts during the same time as his part-time security jobs at a State Liquor Store and a Salt Lake County hospital, according to the charges.
"In a few instances, Hall was clocked-in at three jobs at one time," the charges read.
The court has issued a $5,000 warrant for Hall’s arrest. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56763800-78/hall-charges-shifts-dui.html.csp

Drunks arrested for "parking" under the influence:
Alabama - Next time you go partying, you may want to think before you drink. That advice from Morgan County Sheriff Greg Bartlett. 

"All you got to do is prove they are intoxicated. Most of the time it's obvious if they are passed out in a vehicle," said Bartlett. 

Some drunk drivers crawl behind the wheel, taking their chances on the highway. The one's caught driving under the influence are given a breath test, then handcuffed and taken to jail. But did you know you don't have to be driving drunk to get a DUI? 

"It's not for them to decide if they are too drunk to drive. It's for us to decide," said Bartlett. 

Here's how the state's DUI law works. You are out drinking. You decide to leave the bar and get into your car. Even if your car is parked and the keys are in your pocket, an officer can charge you with DUI. The same is true sitting in your own driveway. 

"What if they woke up at 2 a.m. and decided to look around. They didn't see anybody and decided to drive then they still may be under the influence and still hurt somebody," Bartlett explains. 

Forcing drivers like Shelia Acklin to worry everytime she goes somewhere. 

"If it was not enforced there would be many lives taken from innocent people,' says Acklin. 

While not everyone agrees with the state's law, Bartlett says its better to be safe than sorry. 

"We know they can start driving at anytime. You can't sit there and watch them. It gives the officer a chance to get them off the road."

DUI is a misdemeanor offense. The punishment is a fine and loss of driver's license. The fourth offense is a felony, which includes jail time.

Arrested for going to sleep — because you might wake up and decide to drive?  Why not arrest anyone who buys a gun — because they might decide to shoot someone?  Think about that….http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=3207451&nav=0hBEYdbU 

12 DUI suspects claim to be victims of voyeurism at hands of police:

Puyallup, WA. - Police in Puyallup are accused of video recording DUI suspects in a jail bathroom with the jail's surveillance cameras.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday by Seattle attorney James Egan, who is representing multiple DUI suspects. He said it appears attractive women were being video recorded more than others.

Egan distributed redacted images from the surveillance cameras Thursday. Capt. Scott Engle, of the Puyallup Police Department, calls the suit completely baseless. Cameras in jails are standard operating procedure, and are there strictly for the security of the people in the jail, including the inmates, he said.

One of the women became suspicious when a jail guard noted that she didn't take off her underwear.

Another woman, who goes by Plaintiff No. 5, said she thought officers joked about how she used the toilet but couldn't be sure.

"I heard something like squat, or squatter," she said.

Egan became curious about a pattern with Puyallup DUI suspects and requested the video through public disclosure. Multiple women did not initially realize they had been video recorded.

"I didn't find out until almost two years later when my lawyer called me and told me there was video of me urinating," another woman, Plaintiff No. 3, said.

Engle said men and women are only directed to undress in the cells where there are cameras when the jail is busy and someone is already using the more private area behind the curtain.

Puyallup City Attorney Kevin Yamamoto said the lawsuit only came about because lawyer James Egan was "trolling" for sympathetic people to use as plaintiffs for his own financial gain. He regarded Egan's Public Disclosure Requests for the more than 60 videos as basically frivolous. Eleven women and 1 man are included in the lawsuit.

Egan said the plaintiffs were “detained for misdemeanors only to become the victims” of what he called “felony voyeurism.” Egan said he began investigating the police department’s booking and surveillance practices more than two years ago. He called the practice of observing detainees a “peepshow.”

“I have defended thousands of DUI cases over years and I have never ­ — I mean never — come across anything like this,” said Egan.

Those two cases piqued his curiosity, and Egan said he began filing public-disclosure request on other DUI cases. He claims his investigation showed that some detainees were allowed to change in private, but that it appeared “young and attractive women” were being directed to the holding cells with cameras.

"The practices that are used in the Puyallup Jail are standard correctional procedures used in jails across the United States," Capt. Scott Engle said.http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/12-claim-be-victims-voyeurism-hands-puyallup-polic/nZZgq/
 http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/08/lawsuit-claims-puyallup-police-held-inmate-peepshow/