Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

California is finally considering a law that would allow motorists driving under the influence of drugs to face criminal charges, but the new law won't affect pot smokers or prescription drug poppers. Still, the California DUI Lawyers Association and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice are opposed to the new law and call it unnecessary. They claim drug testing results vary from lab to lab, which may make proving such cases nearly impossible. Their big beef is that anyone caught under the influence of drugs (driving or not) can already be forced to spend up to 90 days in jail, so the proposed law is redundant.

Under the current California law, coked up drivers can be prosecuted, only it doesn't usually happen. Some authorities feel the reason it's difficult to convict a drugged driver is because juries are used to the numbers game associated with drunken driving tests. In other words, a few snorts of coke should leave a chap fine to drive, but one snort too many and it's time to pull over. Sounds like cracked logic.

The California Highway Patrol thinks people under the influence of cocaine shouldn't be driving, not even a little bit. Probably a good thought, but it's one that will likely prove fruitless.

The proposed California law, AB 1215, is caving into the twisted ignorant-jury logic by requesting Legislature to set numerical values for blood and urine samples to determine just how high a driver is and, therefore, whether a conviction is necessary. The Assembly Public Safety Committee wants a no tolerance policy similar to laws currently in affect in over 15 states. Not only would zero-tolerance keep the roads safer from cokeheads, but it would make it easier for the police to do their job. No numbers means not having to rely on or prove varying lab results.

Either way, this law wouldn't affect marijuana users which, if you've ever been to California you know, are the majority of reckless drivers on the road. In fact, the one-way street signs in San Francisco are enough to drive even a straight gal to the bong. It's likely that the objecting DUI Lawyers Association and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice are simply protecting their own rights to drive and toke.

Anyone who has watched TV is familiar with their Miranda Rights and knows they have the "right to an attorney." Even if you aren't under arrest you don't have to speak with the police. However, despite being able to recite their rights by heart, most people voluntarily give them up when being questioned by law enforcement or placed under arrest. The police are experts are getting people to talk; here are five tricks they use to get you to give up your rights:

1. "We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way." - Often, without being arrested, a version of this statement will be made. The cop is suggesting that if you just admit to him you did something wrong, he will go easy on you. Don't fall for it. If you take the bait and admit to a crime you will be arrested and your confession will be used against you.

There is no easy way out, and the cops aren't there to help. The real easy way is to get a lawyer and remain silent.

2. "We would like you to come with us to answer a few questions." - Welcome to cop fishing! If they had enough to make an arrest, they would have. Instead, they want to put you on the record and trip you up later if you miss any details. There is no benefit to cooperation and don't think you can outwit them. No, you don't want to go anywhere. And, no, you aren't answering any questions.

3. "What do you have to hide?" - This loaded question seeks to impugn anyone who knows their rights and refused to cooperate with police. Remember, you don't have to justify your decision not to speak with a cop.

4. "You might as well tell us, we already know everything." - Similar to #3, if the police had evidence of you committing a crime they would be stopping by to arrest you, not to chat.

5. "Why do you need an attorney unless you did something wrong?" - As if you need to justify exercising your rights to a public servant. Don't even attempt to answer this; it's another cop trick question.

The bottom line is you shouldn't try to out smart people whose job it is to trick you into a confession. Getting a lawyer and keeping quiet is the smartest move you can make.

I wouldn't advise someone under public scrutiny for a missing wife and a possible murder to go on NBC's Today show with Matt Lauer. Why? Because it casts suspicious behavior on the suspect. For Drew Peterson a man who is an officer the scrutiny seems to escalate. Peterson in an interview today with Matt Lauer asks his wife "come home" but not in the way a man who really misses his wife would. Maybe it's because he's a cop and he's trained to not reveal emotions. Or maybe he's sick and tired of her emotional roller coaster like shenanigans.

"Mom's gone on a vacation," Drew said to his younger children in reference to missing mom Stacey who left wasn't so happy in the relationship has been missing since October 28t. This man is familiar with the procedures, laws and ins and outs in missing persons cases. Wouldn't he be doing something different than making an appeal on the Today show?

After viewing the media clip Peterson gives me an impression that he's not really making an appeal for the public to call in for tips but it seems more like he's on TV to clear the air, to get the media off his back (as he says) and to get more help from lawyers who are interested in his case.

Exclusive: Peterson talks to TODAY

Along with all that, there seems to be some pattern and even though there may not be any solid evidence, the question I'd like to pose is that do strained marital problems constitute probable cause in bringing a suspect to arrest? The interview with Officer Drew Peterson seemed like a crime show because there was this obvious element of suspicion with his relationship. "The husband is always suspect," it was said.

Typically spouses are usually a prime suspect in murder cases. In addition, we're looking at a man who has four wives and a pattern of meeting women who seemed--in Officer Drew's eyes--to be the trouble makers in the relationships. Kathy (wife number three) who was attractive and young like Stacey had a mysterious accident that resulted in death.

Both had "emotional problems." Peterson explains that their irrational behavior coincides with their hormones. "Hormones kicked in," he said in reference to his past relationship with Kathy. Peterson says when he recalls relationships who were beautiful, exciting, troubled and emotionally unstable. Stacey, a beautiful young woman who had "verbal confrontations" with her estranged officer/husband Drew Peterson gave us some clues to their relationship in an email written by her isn't authentic. Peterson claims that the disturbing email stating that she was in an "abusive relationship" wasn't drafted by Stacey.

When asked about an email allegedly written by Stacey which claimed that their relationship was abusive, Peterson said "I don't believe [the relationship] was ever violent." Instead, he suspects that Stacey is with someone else and has been cooperative with police. Stacey who "hit [Peterson] with a frozen steak," asked Drew for a divorce two days before her disappearance. Peterson claims that she frequently asked for a divorce "based on her menstrual cycle."

If Peterson turns out not to be the man behind Stacey's disappearance or his former wife's death there is still a lot of concerns that the media is focusing on. The media has a big influence in many high-profile cases and it's easy for the public to criminalize this man before he's even tried. While there may be something fishy with his missing wife and his former wife's death, Drew Peterson is innocent until proven guilty.

Most people believe that fully cooperating with law enforcement is the easiest way to avoid a hassle. Naturally, if you've done nothing wrong it won't hurt you to cooperate, right? Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

Even if you have not committed any crime it's easy to fall into the "Section 1001 trap." For that reason, you should NEVER speak to ANY law enforcement officials without first consulting with an attorney.

The Section 1001 trap refers to the United States Code, Section 1001 which makes it illegal to lie to government agents. It is a favorite tool of prosecutors because it can be sprung on anyone, applied arbitrarily, and carries a stiff penalty. It's easy to inadvertently commit a felony; in fact, prosecutions purposely set targets up to do so.

Here is how the trap is set: Unexpectedly a government agent will show up and ask you questions about some previous activity of yours. In a panic, you deny things or maybe make up a story. If any part of what you told the agent is a lie, you may have just committed a felony! You don't have to be put under oath, you don't have to be informed of your rights, and most insidiously, you don't have to actually commit any other crime. In other words, with Section 1001, you can be charged with a felony for lying in the absence of any other criminal act. Just like with Martha Stewart, you can go to jail for lying about a crime no one has to prove you committed.

It's easy to panic and take a wrong step when confronted with accusations. The best way to answer any inquiry by any law enforcement agent is to say, "my attorney will contact you," and keep saying it. No denials or explanations are necessary or prudent. The Section 1001 trap is easy to fall into. Avoid it by being smart and calling an attorney as soon as you are questioned.

What would you do if you found out a friend or relative has been arrested? Would you know how to help your loved one protect his rights and get the legal assistance he needs? Below are the steps you can take should you ever find yourself in this situation.

Steps to Take

1. When you receive the phone call about the arrest, find out where your friend is being held and what he is charged with.


2. If you are able to speak directly with your friend, tell him to say that he wants a lawyer. Explain that you will find one for him and until the lawyer is present, he should not answer any compromising questions, make any statements, or take any tests.


3. Search for a criminal defense attorney to represent your friend. Once you find a lawyer, tell him where your friend is located, what he is charged with, and any other relevant information.

Cautious Cooperation

While talking with your friend, emphasize the importance of having legal representation. Tell your friend that he needs to remain cooperative, but should not volunteer any information besides the basics, like his name and address. In response to any attempts at interrogation, your friend should request a lawyer. It is okay if he has to be a broken record.

Legal Representation

Getting a good lawyer is essential. When you first find an attorney for your friend, explain that, for now, you only need his services for the short term. If you are dissatisfied with him, you can hire a new attorney before your friend