California DUI Lawyer Motion to Suppress Evidence

A California DUI Lawyer may move a California DUI court for an order to suppress all California DUI evidence obtained against a California DUI Attorney's client following an illegal and unlawful stop, detention, search, seizure and arrest of the California DUI Lawyer's client by a California DUI Officer.

The California DUI evidence sought to be excluded by a California DUI Attorney includes, but is not limited to:

1. Any and all California DUI observations of the defendant made by any person after he was stopped by the California DUI arresting officer. Such California DUI observations include, but are not limited to, the appearance of a California DUI Lawyer's client's clothing, his or her face, his or her eyes, his or her mouth, the quality or type of his or her speech, and any odors of any beverage about him or her, or on his or her breath.

2. Any and all California DUI statements outside the presence of a California DUI Lawyer , however memorialized, made orally or in writing by the California DUI Lawyer's client after he or she was stopped by the California Drunk Driving arresting officer.

3. Any and all California Drunk Driving field sobriety tests performed by the California DUI Lawyer's client after he or she was stopped by the California DUI arresting officer.

4. Any and all California DUI breath samples obtained from the California DUI Lawyer's client, and any and all results of any California Drunk Driving tests, including, but not limited to, any California DUI tests for alcohol and/or alcohol content, performed on any breath sample obtained from the California DUI Attorney's client after he or she was stopped by the California Drunk Driving / DWI arresting officer. Such California DUI breath tests, include but are not limited to, any and all results obtained from any California DUI Intoxilyzer or California Drunk Driving Intoximeter breath test machine and any California DUI preliminary alcohol screening device.

The governmental conduct violated the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy under the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. The constitutional grounds for this motion are that the California DUI stop, detention, search, seizure and arrest of the California DUI Lawyer's client by the California Drunk Driving officer was without a warrant and as such was unreasonable and unlawful. The California DUI Lawyer motion is based upon the notice of motion, the California DUI Lawyer's points and authorities, the testimony of any witnesses who may testify at the hearing on the California DUI Lawyer's motion, and any arguments that may be advanced, and evidence that may be introduced at the California DUI Attorney's hearing.

1. INTRODUCTION

A California DUI police officer with the California Highway Patrol stopped/detained the California DUI Lawyer's client. The California DUI arresting officer did not have a warrant authorizing him to stop, detain or arrest the California DUI Lawyer's client. According to the California DUI police report generated in this case, the California Drunk Driving arresting officer stopped the California DUI Lawyer's client because the vehicle was (e.g.) allegedly weaving between lanes. The California DUI Lawyer 's client maintains that he was not violating any law nor engaged in any conduct that justified him being stopped by the California DUI police. Following the California DUI stop, the California DUI Lawyer 's client was given a series of California Drunk Driving field sobriety tests and subsequently was arrested for a California DUI - driving under the influence of alcohol. After he was arrested the California DUI Lawyer's client submitted to two California Drunk Driving breath tests to attempt to determine the level of alcohol. This California DUI Attorney's motion to suppress follows.

2. A WARRANTLESS CALIFORNIA DUI STOP OR DETENTION IS PRESUMED UNLAWFUL

A California DUI Attorney points out The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, although only one sentence long, protects California people against unjustified detentions by the government, including California's DUI police. The Amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Under the Fourth Amendment a search or seizure cannot take place without a warrant unless an exception to the warrant requirement exists. The reason for this is that a warrantless search or seizure is presumed to be unlawful. Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 357. This longstanding rule places upon the state the burden to prove the lawfulness of a warrantless detention. Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S.433, 455. People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 119, 136. The California Supreme Court described this procedure in People v. Williams, at page 136:
... [W]e hold that when defendants move to suppress evidence, they must set forth the factual and legal bases for the motion, but they satisfy that obligation, at least in the first instance, by making a prima facie showing that the police acted without a warrant. The prosecution then has the burden of proving some justification for the warrantless search or seizure.

As previously described in the California DUI Lawyer motion, the California DUI police stopped the California DUI Attorney's client without a warrant—therefore, the burden lies with the prosecution to establish the legitimacy of the detention.

The legitimacy of a stop of a motor vehicle - including one driven by a California DUI Lawyer's client - requires the prosecution must prove that a police officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist had been or was engaged in unlawful activity. Delaware v. Prouse (1979) 440 U.S. 648, 661. The stop in this case did not meet the criteria mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Delaware v. Prouse.

3. CALIFORNIA DUI EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM AN ILLEGAL STOP MUST BE SUPPRESSED

When an initial seizure is unconstitutional, all evidence that flows from that seizure, including the California DUI Lawyer’s client's statements, must be suppressed. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643. It is noted here that the good faith exception does not apply to warrantless stops. People v. Hernandez (2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th Supp 1. The California DUI Lawyer's client requests the California DUI court to suppress any and all California DUI, Drunk Driving, or DWI observations, California DUI Lawyer's client's statements, California DUI field sobriety tests, and California DUI breath tests that were obtained after the California DUI arresting officer unlawfully stopped him.

A California DUI Lawyer must be the one making any such California DUI Attorney motion.