Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

An Orange County Sheriff's Deputy reportedly pleaded guilty to driving under the influence last week. According to prosecutors, Mario Manuel Castro, age 33, left a bar in Costa Mesa at about 2:00 a.m. on September 30, 2011, where he had consumed a number of drinks while off-duty. Police arrested him when he drove on the wrong side of the road directly towards a patrol car from the Orange Police Department. The arresting officer stated that Castro "displayed objective signs of alcohol intoxication," which included a strong smell of alcohol and "unsteady balance." Castro's blood alcohol content was reportedly .24 percent, three times the legal limit of .08.

Prosecutors charged Castro with two misdemeanors and a sentencing enhancement, and he pleaded guilty to all three. The misdemeanor charges were driving under the influence of alcohol with a prior DUI conviction and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or greater with a prior conviction. Castro was convicted in 2009 of driving under the influence of alcohol in Los Angeles County. The sentencing enhancement was for driving with a blood alcohol level over .15 percent. The court sentenced him to sixty days in county jail followed by five years of probation, and he must complete an eighteen-month "Multiple Offender Alcohol Program" and a "Victim Impact Panel" presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The Orange County Sheriff's Department says that Castro left the department on or about February 22. Castro had remained on active duty while an internal investigation was underway. A department spokesperson reportedly would not say whether Castro was terminated or resigned.

All U.S. states have established .08 percent as the legal limit for DUI offenses. In some cases, a lower limit may be imposed, such as for people on probation for a DUI offense or people operating commercial vehicles. Defendants charged with DUI may face additional charges or penalties for blood alcohol levels significantly higher than .08. The federal government has conditioned various appropriations to the states on state legislatures keeping the legal limit at or below .08 percent.

"Repeat offenders," defined in California Vehicle Code Section 23217 as persons convicted of multiple DUI offenses within a ten-year period, may be subject to sentencing enhancements. The statute declares that repeat offenders may be "escaping the intent of the Legislature" to impose harsher punishments for subsequent offenses. The law therefore allows greater penalties for each additional DUI offense within a given period of time.

Continue reading "Orange County Sheriff's Deputy Convicted of DUI, Sentenced to Sixty Days in Jail" »

A jury in Chicago convicted police officer Richard Bolling of reckless homicide, aggravated DUI, and leaving the scene of an accident on January 18. He remains in custody while he waits for sentencing, which is scheduled for February. He faces a maximum of fifteen years' imprisonment, although he is also eligible for probation. Bolling admitted to drinking the night of the accident that killed 13 year-old Trenton Booker, but he has consistently denied that he was legally intoxicated. Prosecutors contended at trial that Bolling received preferential treatment from police during the investigation of the accident. This led to interesting questions regarding evidence of intoxication.

The accident occurred in the early morning of May 22, 2009. According to Bolling's own account of events, he had been drinking at a bar with friends. He says he only had three drinks, including a beer the bartender gave him as he was leaving. Bolling says he was driving his Dodge Charger at about 40 to 45 miles per hour when he saw a bicycle coming towards him. He says he swerved to avoid hitting the bicycle, which is when he hit Booker, who was also on a bicycle. He heard the car hit something and says he felt "stunned," but did not immediately realize he had hit a person. He drove away from the scene, but was pulled over several blocks away going the wrong way on a one-way street.

Bolling claimed in court that he was planning on returning to the scene before he was pulled over. He says that he agreed to do a field sobriety test and successfully completed the test four times. The officers who pulled him over testified at his trial that they determined at the time that he was not intoxicated, but they described that determination at trial as "erroneous." One of the officers also claimed that her watch commander told her not to do the tests until two hours after the incident. She said she felt "nervous" at the scene because several high-ranking police officers were present.

Police gave Bolling a Breathalyzer test more than four hours after the accident. His blood alcohol content at that time was .079 percent, just below the legal limit of intoxication of .08. At the trial, a forensic toxicologist with the State Police testified that, had a Breathalyzer test been performed just after the accident, he would have tested above the legal limit.

Continue reading "Police Officer Convicted in DUI, Hit and Run Case" »

Yadira Torres, a 26 year-old resident of Hartford, Connecticut, will serve at least five years in prison under an agreement to plead guilty to driving while intoxicated and vehicular manslaughter in state Superior Court in Stamford. A judge will decide the exact length of her sentencing at a hearing scheduled for February 22. The case involves an accident in May 2011 that killed a truck driver and a pregnant teenager.

Early in the morning of May 7, Torres was driving a Dodge Caliber SUV home from a night out at a nightclub in Manhattan. As she was going north on Interstate 95 in Darien, Connecticut, Torres lost control of her vehicle while attempting to pass a tractor trailer. Her vehicle collided with the tractor trailer with enough force to cause it to turn over and spin, becoming separated from its trailer. The truck caught fire when it came to rest.

Passers-by managed to remove the truck's passenger, 18 year-old Kimberly Taborda. Rescue workers pronounced the truck's driver, 42 year-old James Sorto, dead at the scene. His burns were extensive enough that the medical examiner needed several days to identify his remains. Taborda died of blunt trauma injuries later at a nearby hospital. Police arrested Torres at a different hospital, where she and her three passengers were taken for minor injuries.

Torres was remorseful over the accident and admitted to full responsibility, according to the public defender who represented her. She is free on $35,000 bail pending her sentencing, and her attorney says that she has not driven a car since the accident occurred. She reportedly had minimal automobile insurance coverage, so the families of the victims have opted not to file civil claims against Torres for wrongful death. An attorney for Taborda's family, however, told the Stamford Advocate that the family is considering a dram shop lawsuit against the Manhattan nightclub that allegedly served Torres alcohol that day. Dram shop cases involve claims against people or businesses that serve alcohol, if they serve a visibly intoxicated person and that person goes on to cause injury to another person.

Prosecutors charged Torres with driving under the influence, reckless driving, and two counts of manslaughter. Her plea, entered in court on November 22, includes all four charges. At her sentencing hearing in February, her attorney and the prosecutor will each present arguments to the judge regarding an appropriate sentence. She will serve a minimum of five years, but could serve as many as eight years in state prison.

Continue reading "Driver Pleads Guilty to DWI, Vehicular Manslaughter" »

A 55 year-old Orange County man recently received his thirteenth conviction for driving under the influence, sparking a debate about how California treats multiple convictions spread out over time. Police arrested Dennis Malavasi after they found him in the driver's seat of a pickup truck with the engine running, sitting with a half-empty malt liquor bottle, as reported by the Orange County Register. According to police records, his blood alcohol content that night was 0.24, which is three times the legal driving limit. Police and prosecutors were shocked to find that he had twelve prior convictions for DUI. Malavasi claimed pain from a back injury led to his drinking.

A jury found Malavasi guilty of felony driving under the influence, and the judge sentenced him to six years imprisonment. The judge suspended Malavasi's sentence to give him an opportunity to check into a treatment program. Malavasi did check in, but then checked out early, citing back pain. His whereabouts, according to the Register, are currently unknown, and the judge has issued a warrant for his arrest.

Prior to his thirteenth conviction, Malavasi's last DUI conviction occurred in 2001, almost ten years earlier. Under a California law that only allows ten years' of criminal history to be considered in sentencing, the court almost had to charge him with a misdemeanor. He missed the ten-year cutoff by barely one year, so he was charged with a felony because of the number of prior convictions. Had he met the ten-year cutoff, the state could only have charged him with a misdemeanor, with a maximum jail sentence of one year. This law creating the ten-year cutoff date has come under scrutiny by lawmakers, who hope to prevent additional habitual DUI defendants from getting lesser sentences, or who at least see an opportunity to appear tough on crime.

The purpose of the ten-year law was to allow DUI offenders an opportunity to "change their ways." A person who got a DUI in their youth and again in middle age presumably poses less of a risk to public safety than someone who habitually drinks and drives. California law imposes progressively harsher sentences on repeat DUI offenders, but such mandatory sentencing is only based on 10 years' worth of conviction history. In effect, a person gets a clean slate after ten years, at least where sentencing is concerned.

Continue reading "Orange County Man's 13th DUI Conviction Leads Some Officials to Seek to Change Mandatory Sentencing Laws" »

The Connecticut Supreme Court reinstated the conviction for manslaughter and drunk driving against former teacher Tricia Coccomo earlier this month. Coccomo had appealed her 2007 conviction, arguing in part that the trial court had improperly allowed the prosecution to introduce irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. An appeals court agreed with her and reversed her conviction and 12-year prison sentence, but now the state's highest court has imposed the original punishment again. The case illustrates some interesting issues of evidence and due process.

This case originated with a July 2005 car crash that killed three people. Coccomo's sport utility vehicle crossed over the center line of Long Ridge Road in Stamford and collided head-on with a convertible. The driver and two passengers of the convertible died. Prosecutors charged her with manslaughter and driving under the influence. They presented evidence that her blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was .20, more than twice the legal limit of .08. Coccomo had allegedly requested a blood alcohol test in the hospital. Coccomo's attorney argued that the blood sample tested did not belong to Coccomo because staff at the emergency room mixed up the blood samples. Prosecutors also introduced evidence that, about ten days after the crash, Coccomo transferred her ownership interest in her home to her mother for the sum of $1. They argued that this demonstrated a "guilty conscience" on Coccomo's part. Based largely on the blood alcohol results, a jury convicted Coccomo in February 2007. In March of that year, she received a sentence of twelve years in prison.

Coccomo appealed the conviction and posted a $1 million bond, which led to her supervised release from jail. She argued to the appeals court that the trial court made an error in admitting evidence of the sale of her house, and in arguing that this sale, along with her request of a blood test, could serve as evidence of guilt. Connecticut's Appellate Court agreed with her, and in the summer of 2009 they reversed her conviction. The Appellate Court ruled that evidence of the asset transfer only served to inflame and distract the jury from the pertinent issues in the case. In an unusual move, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, potentially setting a precedent on the question of whether a transfer of assets can prove guilt. The Supreme Court issued a 4-3 ruling in early November reinstating Coccomo's conviction and prison sentence.

Continue reading "Convictions for Manslaughter, DUI Reinstated for Fatal Car Accident" »

An important responsibility that your Orange County DUI attorney has is to shield you from biased jurors. Your DUI lawyer will have a chance to screen potential jurors before your DUI trial through a process called voir dire. During voir dire, attorneys from both sides will have the chance to interview each potential juror, asking detailed questions about their background and beliefs.

For a DUI trial in particular, your lawyer will need to be on the lookout for jurors who strongly disapprove of even legal and responsible alcohol use. People who, for religious or personal reasons, are strongly against any alcohol users will be far less inclined to listen to your attorney's arguments that you did not do anything wrong.

People's biases are not immediately apparent, and part of what distinguishes an experienced DUI attorney is his ability to subtly probe for bias. An experienced DUI attorney might ask a potential juror hypothetical questions, asking if they thought it is ever justifiable for someone to drive after having consumed alcohol.

Using this method, a DUI lawyer may even be able to determine how willing jurors who say they are against alcohol would be to reconsidering their position if a reasonable argument was presented. However, if a juror seems unlikely to give you a fair chance at trial, regardless of the arguments presented, your attorney can request that he be excluded from the jury.

Fighting a DUI charge in Orange County requires an experienced DUI attorney. Call Orange County DUI attorney Barney Gibbs today for a free consultation.

In order to build a strong defense for you, your Orange County DUI lawyer will gather information that has the potential to be evidence in your favor; he will then decide what to use in the case. Exculpatory evidence is most commonly used in DUI cases. This type of evidence is anything that is definitely in your favor in the case. Your defense attorney will be able to decide what is of use and what is not.

Other types of evidence that your Orange County DUI lawyer will obtain include:

• Earlier police reports written by the officer who arrested you. If the police officer in question tends to write the same observations on every arrest report on drunk driving, that officer's credibility is highly questionable. Even subtle issues with reports can be useful. For example, if the officer who arrested you tends to ask suspects how much sleep they have gotten but did not do so with you, your DUI lawyer could argue that the officer's perception of your condition and your field sobriety test results was inaccurate.

• Your driving record. Part of a plea bargain is for you to plead guilty. If you already have points on your driving record and you plead guilty to an offense that causes you to receive more points, you could risk losing your driver's license. Being aware of the amount of points that you already have can help your lawyer to ensure that you do not lose your license by negotiating an agreement where you plead guilty to an offense that does not add points to your driving record.

• Your criminal history as well as those of any potential witnesses, which can affect perceived credibility.

• Accident reports. If you caused an accident that led to your being charged with drunk driving, and that accident occurred in a spot prone to collisions, your attorney could argue that the location, rather than any alleged intoxication, is what caused the accident. In the case of a major accident, an accident reconstructionist's report can greatly help your defense.

If you've been arrested for a DUI, do not hesitate to the get the legal help you need from an experienced Orange County DUI lawyer. For a free initial consultation with Barney Gibbs, do not hesitate to give a call today.

In order to build a strong case for you, your Orange County drunk driving attorney will gather information that could be used in your defense, including but not limited to:

• Exculpatory evidence. This is any information that works in your favor.

• Your DMV records. Your Orange County DUI lawyer will need to be aware of your driving record so that any possible plea bargains do not cause you to lose your license. A plea bargain means a conviction, and if you have past driving points on your record, those might cause issues with your license. If that is the case, your attorney will work to ensure that any plea bargains are for an offense that does not contribute towards your point count.

• Criminal histories. These are "rap sheets" of you and any possible witnesses. Your and your witness' perceived credibility are affect by this.

• Accident reports. These are documents from accident reconstructionists and others pertaining to any accidents that you caused. If there is an accident involved with your case, your Orange County DUI attorney can check to see if the spot is a common one for accidents; if so, he may be able to prove that it was the roadway and not intoxication that caused the incident.

• Past police reports from the arresting officer. These are arrest reports written by the same officer who charged you with drunk driving. If the officer in question tends to write the same observations on drunk driving reports for all defendants, that officer's credibility can be called into question. Even if such an obvious issue cannot be found, your Orange County drunk driving lawyer can learn much in the way of useful information by reading the reports. If the officer tends to ask suspects how long they slept the night before but did not ask you that, for example, your Orange County DUI attorney could argue that the officer's view of your field sobriety tests was skewed.

If you are facing the serious charge of drunk driving, contact Orange County DUI attorney Barney Gibbs for help in your defense.

When an officer uses a non-standardized sobriety test during a DUI stop, the test procedures depend on the type of test chosen by the officer. The officer must correctly perform the type of test selected. Barney Gibbs, Orange County DUI lawyer, can explain the proper procedures for each type of non-standardized DUI test, discuss your test results and other evidence in your case, and establish a strategy for your DUI defense.

In one type of non-standardized DUI test, an officer may observe a subject's handwriting to look for the effects of alcohol consumption. The accuracy of this test, however, may leave room for strategic argument by your Orange County DUI lawyer. For example, one study charted the handwriting samples of thirty five men and women before and after a period of alcohol consumption. According to the results of this study, handwriting could not provide an accurate assessment of the test subject's blood alcohol concentration.

An officer may also use the hand-pat test during a DUI stop. The hand-pat test requires the subject to place one hand in front of her with the palm facing up. She places her other hand on top with the palm down. After patting the bottom hand once, the subject must rotate her hand by 180 degrees to touch the bottom hand with the back of the top hand. As the test progresses, the officer may instruct the subject to speed up. Some critics of the test believe that it is a failure-designed test because many subjects will double pat or incorrectly place their hands as the speed of the test increases. If you were required to do a hand-pat test, your Orange County DUI lawyer may be able to undermine the results when presented by the prosecutor in your case.

As with the hand-pat test, an officer may choose the test of picking up coins if the subject mentions a bad leg, knee, or back before the sobriety test. The test requires the subject to pick up several coins from the hood of the subject's car or from another flat surface.

Officers rarely use this type of test. When an officer does opt for this test, an Orange County DUI lawyer such as Barney Gibbs can work with you to challenge the scientific validity of the test.

Many DUI arrests have been made because a witness, usually a driver or passenger in another car, noticed someone driving erratically and called the police.

Since a big part of any DUI case is determining whether or not the officer had sufficient cause to pull over the driver, it becomes very important to determine if any tip sufficiently justifies the officer's actions. The key factor is whether or not the information in the tip was thorough and accurate.

For example, in one Utah case, the defendant had a nonviolent argument with his girlfriend and then left her house. The girlfriend called the police, and claimed that he had drunk alcohol at her house and then drove away. The dispatcher told police officers that the defendant was drunk and in a motor vehicle, and, using the girlfriend's description of his car, the police pulled him over and arrested him for driving under the influence.

However, the Utah Court of Appeals eventually ruled that since the girlfriend did not say her boyfriend was drunk, nor did she say how many drinks he had or when he had those drinks, the dispatcher erred when telling the police officer that the defendant was drunk. The stop was eventually ruled illegal.

If you have been charged with a DUI in Orange County, it is very important that you find an Orange County DUI attorney that knows how to determine the legality of your traffic stop. Call experienced Orange County DUI attorney Barney Gibbs today for a free consultation.

One of the most common elements of any battery of field sobriety tests administered in conjunction with a DUI traffic stop is the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Federal authorities suggest that states should implement this test as a regular aspect of field sobriety tests, as it can gauge intoxication more reliably than some other tests. However, this test is met with scrutiny by any Orange County DUI lawyer and is often rebutted with common sense explanations for alleged evidence of intoxication.

If you were recently arrested under suspicion of a DUI, your Orange County DUI lawyer will check to see if the officer followed proper protocol with respect to the nystagmus test. In preparation for the test, the officer must instruct the suspect to remove his or her eyeglasses, keep his head still and stand with feet together and arms at the side. The suspect is then instructed to look at the stimulus and follow it with eyes only. The stimulus, which is often a light beam, should be held 12"-15" from the face of the suspect and slightly above eye level.

The horizontal gaze test is used to test a variety of characteristics of the eyes. The officer is testing to see if the eyes can track the stimulus, whether pupil sizes are equal and, most importantly, smooth pursuit. Smooth pursuit is measured by starting with the suspect's left eye and moving the stimulus at a speed in which it takes two seconds to bring the eye as far to the side as it can go and two seconds to move it back. This is performed twice in each eye. Another test evaluates nystagmus at 45 degrees and the stimulus is moved such that it takes four seconds to reach the suspect's shoulder. Once nystagmus is observed, the officer stops to verify whether eye jerking continues. Similar tests are performed vertically as well.

All portions of the nystagmus horizontal eye gaze test are compiled to determine a final result. While nystagmus tests are sometimes indicative of intoxication, they are also not always accurate and certain eye conditions or environmental stimuli can contribute to the officer's conclusion that the suspect is intoxicated when in fact he is not.

If you were recently arrested for a DUI after completing a nystagmus horizontal eye gaze test, contact Orange County DUI lawyer Barney Gibbs today.

When Breath Test Operator Fran Griefenbach left her job at the Hernando County Detention Center, she explained the reasons why in an email. This email has caused a firestorm of controversy in Florida. Mrs. Griefenbach's email indicated she quit because deputies had breached security by entering the Breath Test Room on numerous occasions without authorization. The Florida Administrative Code states that only people issued permits by the state should have access to the breath machines. This is to protect the chain of evidence.

Even though an internal investigation found the machines weren't tampered with, emails show that the security of the Breath Testing Room was lax. Numerous incidents of unauthorized entry have been found. In one case, the room was left unlocked for 24 hours. Many deputies and inmates passed the door on a daily basis.

Since these allegations arose, an electronic key lock has been placed on the door.
Although prosecutors will undoubtedly make light of the security breaches, why was the electronic lock put on the door?

In addition, the defense bar was not notified until 4 months after the allegations arose. Many people had, by then, pled guilty.

DUI cases are prosecuted around this country by relying on scientific evidence. Prosecutors take great pains to tell juries that science is on their side. Forensic experts for the state take the stand and testify with mind-numbing detail of the reliability of their crime lab. It is as if the lab is a finely-tuned watch that smoothly and effortlessly functions with very little input by mere mortals.

It is very distressing to be told the rules the prosecution uses to tout the reliability of these machines are not very important. They appear to want it both ways.

Instead of trying to sweep this all under the rug, if the powers that be dismissed any case which was tarnished by these security breaches, they could then take the ethical highroad. To prosecute someone for violating the law is one thing, but to play fast and easy with the rules when you do it is unfair.

Depending on the specifics of your case and the prosecution's position, your lawyer may or may not advise you to go to trial. If the prosecution proposes a settlement agreement, there may be a weakness in its case; this is not certain, however. Either way, the prosecution will not voluntarily expose its position in a DUI case. However, a knowledgeable and proficient Orange County DUI lawyer will be able to read the signals given by the prosecution and figure out the strength of the state's case against you.

Commonly, the prosecutor in a DUI case will be employed by the state attorney's office or another large governmental agency. Because workloads and work schedules vary, a single prosecutor will not be the only person in charge of your DUI case throughout the entire process. Therefore, the prosecutor in charge that particular day will take notes in the file, often in front of the defense attorney in the courtroom. As such, your Orange County DUI lawyer will be able to decipher this note taking as to how your case may turn out.

The most obvious sign that the prosecution may intend to take your case to trial is extensive note taking after a pretrial conference. Generally, taking massive notes means that the prosecutor feels that there is something uncommon about the case, for better or worse. On the other hand, a more routine and winner case for the prosecution will not require too many comments or written information.

In determining whether the prosecutor's note taking is a good or a bad sign, your lawyer will observe the prosecutor's demeanor during the next pretrial hearing. The prosecutor's attitude, comments, and tone of voice will be reflective of whatever comments were made in the file at the preceding hearing.

In instances where the prosecutor is relatively new and who is most likely employed on a probationary basis, your Orange County DUI lawyer will have the upper hand. If the prosecutor has a weak win-loss record, your attorney could present your case in light that could potentially cause the prosecution more problems. In such cases, it is very likely that the prosecutor will settle your case.

In short, assessing the intention of the prosecution is an invaluable skill that an experienced Orange County DUI lawyer can bring to your case. For a free initial consultation, contact dedicated Orange County DUI lawyer Barney Gibbs today.

Washington D.C. police officers Andrew Zabavsky and his partner Jose Rodriguez spent many years making the streets safe. Both officers have registered hundreds of DUI arrests. With a record like this, the Washington Regional Alcohol Program recognized them for their outstanding commitment for the period of 2006-2009. Was the city happy? No.

The two officers were subjected to investigation, harassment, demoralization and recommendations for termination by the city's police chief and others.

Why would the powers that be so aggressively persecute two decorated veteran officers? Because they refused to lie about a breath tests' improper calibration.

It appears, in 2010, a reliable technician told these two police officers that the breath tests had been improperly calibrated for a very long period of time. These faulty calibrations could affect hundreds of cases.

When defense attorneys began to cross examine these officers about the discrepancies, lawyers with the Attorney General's Office wanted the officers to act dumb. When the officers were not willing to do this, the Attorney General's Office started an investigation against them. In addition, the Attorney General's Office forbade them from testifying in court. The police department also tried to fire Officer Rodriguez.

Ultimately, both officers were cleared of all of the spurious claims. However, as of this date, Zabavsky and Rodriguez have ceased working DUI cases.

This story clearly shows how easy it is to go from being one of the "good guys" to being one of the "bad guys". Many people in this country do not believe it is possible for them or their family to innocently get caught up in the judicial system. These officers were simply doing their job. Instead of correcting any problems with the calibration of the breath test device, it seems the Attorney General preferred to keep it quiet. Once the officers refused to go along with this, they became the "bad guys".

It is understandable parties in a criminal prosecution have different interests. The People want a conviction and the defense wants an acquittal. There are, however, rules. If a defense attorney were to inappropriately coerce a witness, he/she would be disbarred.
Prosecutors do not appear to have these fears. Since they act under the color of their authority, they are given more leeway. The problem with this leeway, though, is the potential for abuse. If police officers are subject to this abuse, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Because of errors in the Hernando County Sheriff's Department's administration of breath tests, many DUI cases may be dismissed. All states have rules for the administration of breath tests. These rules must be followed in order for the tests to be admissible in court. It appears the Hernando County Sheriff's Department did not follow these mandates from August 2010 to May 2011.

Florida law requires breath testing equipment and the room in which it is located be accessible only to people issued a valid permit or people authorized by a permit holder. A video obtained by a news station, however, shows the above rules being violated.

In addition, Florida law requires breath test operators be employed by the agency but Breath Test Operator Fran Griefenbach was, in fact, a contractor. Griefenbach said she resigned because the breath testing instruments had been tampered with, machines were turned off and cameras were moved. Griefenbach said she "could no longer sign a breath test affidavit in good confidence that everything was true and accurate" because she did not know who may have been tampering with the machines.

Although the Sheriff's Department says no tampering was found, they are sending Brady notices to defense attorneys. Brady evidence is exculpatory evidence which must be disclosed to the defense. This Brady notice advises defense counsel of breaches in Intoxilizer protocol.

I have always been amazed at how Sheriff's Departments attempt to downplay the failure of their agents to follow the law. These very same people claim to have a thorough knowledge of the Penal and Vehicle Codes as well as a zero tolerance for any civilian who violates said codes. The television is literally awash with shows depicting law enforcement officers administering justice to the letter of the law. However, when they are required to follow certain protocols, they are considerably more lax.

It is important to maintain the procedures which ensure the accuracy of these breath test devices. If law enforcement is allowed to disregard these rules whenever they want, the breath test will eventually cease to have any evidential value. This would be a severe blow to prosecutions of DUI cases.