First Time DUI in San Francisco

[trafficsucks]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: CA

I am inquiring on behalf of my girlfriend.

She was pulled over by CHP in San Francisco on 1/29/11 and arrested for DUI. She was sent to the drunk tank and cited and released by the SFSD. She is it appear in court on 2/14/11.

Facts:
- charged with 23152(a) - DUI and 23152(b) - 0.08 BAC or higher
- citation issued from SFSD has misspelled name
- 1st time DUI with no prior moving violations.
- blood was drawn, not sure of results.

A few questions:
- lawyer, yes or no, pros and cons?
- arraignment with no lawyer, better to plead no contest/guilty/not guilty?
- how to obtain a copy of police report?
- misspelled name on citation from sheriffs dept., any leverage there?
- public defender or lawyer?

Just trying to help my girlfriend figure out the best course of action. Seems like everyone has a different view on whether to get a lawyer or not. Any help/comments is greatly appreciated.

TIA

[Raleigh]

Facts are a little sparse to make a decision but assuming the BAC was over .08 like it says in citation I would say her best bet is to go to arraignment w/o an attorney and ask for diversion. If this is 1st time it should be offered. Any money spent fighting this is likely not worth it. You don't give us any facts that would lead to believe she has any valid defenses so just getting this out of the way with a diversion seems smart.

Hopefully it is a good learning experience and wake up call for her. Luckily nobody was hurt.

[cdwjava]

She was pulled over by CHP in San Francisco on 1/29/11 and arrested for DUI. She was sent to the drunk tank and cited and released by the SFSD. She is it appear in court on 2/14/11.

If arrested by the CHP, why a citation by the SFPD? I susepct that she was booked into the jail and then released with a citation by the SFSO.

Facts:
- charged with 23152(a) - DUI and 23152(b) - 0.08 BAC or higher
- citation issued from SFSD has misspelled name
- 1st time DUI with no prior moving violations.
- blood was drawn, not sure of results.

A few questions:
- lawyer, yes or no, pros and cons?
- arraignment with no lawyer, better to plead no contest/guilty/not guilty?
- how to obtain a copy of police report?
- misspelled name on citation from sheriffs dept., any leverage there?
- public defender or lawyer?

Yes, a lawyer is a great idea. As a note, a public defender IS a lawyer. And if she can afford a private attorney, she probably will not qualify for a public defender anyway. If she hires her own, having him or her present at arraignment would be a good idea. Otherwise, a PD will likely be appointed at that time.

The few DUI cases that are dismissed or not prosecuted are cases that were defeated by showing that ether there was no reasonable suspicion for the initial traffic stop, or by challenging the probable cause supporting the arrest. If no glaring error appears evident to an attorney reviewing the reports, chances are a plea deal is in her future anyway.

Oh, and the misspelled name will amount to nothing.

Her attorney can get the report, she probably will not be able to.

[HonkingAntelope]

One more thing: Make sure you have the police report in hand when you see an attorney for the initial consultation. All to often, the police report tells a different story from what the defendant does, and a case that sounds 'doable' can turn out hopeless after reading the police report. Also, if BAC is much more than .09%, even a decent attorney won't be able to do much unless there are major screwups such as a dodgy arrest or bad paperwork on the test equipment.

[cdwjava]

One more thing: Make sure you have the police report in hand when you see an attorney for the initial consultation. All to often, the police report tells a different story from what the defendant does, and a case that sounds 'doable' can turn out hopeless after reading the police report. Also, if BAC is much more than .09%, even a decent attorney won't be able to do much unless there are major screwups such as a dodgy arrest or bad paperwork on the test equipment.

As a note on obtaining the report before speaking to attorneys, most police agencies will not release these reports to the suspect unless it is through his attorney. But, the prosecutor may very well release the report to the defendant at or after the arraignment. A police agency can choose to, but it is the practice of most to consider these as investigative files and not subject to public disclosure.

[Raleigh]

The defendant had an absolute right to whatever "investigative report" the prosecution is using as the basis of its claim through discovery.this right is only absolute post arraignment to trial date. There are some rules where that access is limited to defendants attorney and not the defendant but those would not apply in straight DUI case (applies more with jailhouse snitch, witness protection type cases).
Police departments, like any bureaucracy, often drag their feet about providing copies but push them and they are legally required to comply. the foia has some relevance as well.

This might help:
http://www.annarbor.com/vielmetti/fo...olice-records/

[cdwjava]

Discovery is obtained through the DA, not the police department. The police can - and most often do - choose not to release the report pursuant to exceptions provided under GC 6254(f).

The point being that it is not likely that the defendant will be able to get a copy of his police report prior to interviewing attorneys unless he has a gracious police department or a gracious prosecutor willing to release it prior to arraignment.

[flyingron]

FOIA is the wrong way to go and that article is very, very specific to Michigan law which is of little help to the guy in San Francisco.

[cdwjava]

Additionally, FOIA is a federal law (though some states also refer to their state laws on open records as the FOIA). In CA the relevant laws are found in the CPRA (California Public Records Act), and this exempts investigative files.

[Raleigh]

Well, in any DUI case, the police report is basically the prosecution's entire basis for a case. I'm not sure about Cali law (I'm an Oregon attorney) but im going to venture that if D goes unrepresented he is going to be entitled to see the police report regardless of whether or not he is represented. It's a little kafkaesque that he wouldt be able to see the case against him, no? I think the 5th and 14th amendments would agree.