“The Institute of Advanced Motorists in the Britain has carried out live tests which prove that using smartphones impairs driving a lot more than drug or alcohol response times 37.6 percent slower (PDF). The outcome is actually a big concern since a quarter of motorists admit to forwarding texts from their phones while driving. ‘Juvenile men and women have grown up with smart phones and using them is part of everyday life. But a lot more work needs to feel ready by the authorities and online network providers to show juvenile men and women that they tend to be risking their lives and the lives of other people if they utilize their smart phones while driving.'”
This is just another reason why one should take their drug cases seriously. One man got caught with a prescription drug. The quantity that he got caught with is also surprising. He got caught with only one pill. However, this pill was enough to cause a whole lot of heartache. It’s just a horrible case of how one prescription pill ruined a person’s life. This happened to a young stockbroker who was going thru grad school. He ended up having to take a job as a cook then being unemployed. This is why your drug cases must be taken seriously.
There are also a few legal questions concerning the facts. One of my main questions is how did this come from a speeding violation to a search? This is can’t happen. A speeding violation is a speeding violation. The cop would not be justified to search the car on these facts alone. There must have been more to the facts. There should have been facts to lead the cop to believe that he had drugs to justify the search.
Alternatively, he could have just consented to the search of the car. This is interesting because cops have a way of asking for permission in a manner which makes it seem like an order. This is one of the reasons why I always tell my client to never give consent. Personally I’d never consent. Even if I had nothing in my car nobody has any business looking thru it. I would have handled this differently. Id’ ask the police officer if it was a request or an order. If it was a request, I’d say no. If he orders then he’ll need some facts to justify the stop which he will have to answer later in court in a motion to suppress hearing. However there is the issue of consent. Police officers have a funny way of making their request sound like an order. This lets them turn things (If you don’t mind, I’m going to search your car please step out) around on their report to say something similar to I asked Hieu if I would let me search his car and he consented.
There’s a saying that probation are always trying to violate a person. This is what happened here. The probation officer was very active and checking up on him. I thought probation was a pain in the ass as well. This is bad for the purpose of a criminal record because if a person violates probation in California, the chances of expungement or a dismissal pursuant to 1203.4 is substantially less and is complicated by the violation.
Another thing that really bothered about this article are the employers. Employers are not allowed to consider charges which have been expunged. In fact, they are required to ignore it. In addition to that most databases are required to keep their information current. The fact that it isn’t is troubling. The main thing is that expunged or dismissed cases must be removed from the database. I know sometimes things don’t get cleared up. Of course hindsight is perfect, but assuming he did, he should have not consented to the search. If this had happened, then the police would have never found that one oxycontin pill.
I’ve been to many courts in Southern California and have noticed that the price for a California Speeding Ticket Cost is going to go up. Some courts shock me more than others. My clients are not the only ones who are not following the law. Many judges are asking for bail on traffic speeding tickets. This happens even when there is counsel involved which can increase the cost of a California Speeding Ticket Cost. I will not name the two courts involved, but they asked for bail. One court in particular was persistent in asking for it and will not budge even with counsel. I can’t imagine what they do with people who are not trained in the law. I don’t really understand it as bail is necessary to only secure the public safety or to secure future appearances. This led me to addressing the judge with the old wind up “You honor I don’t mean to be rude….” which went in one ear and out the other. It wasn’t until I pushed harder which resulted in me getting his attention and he set it for a bail hearing. I bet he knew it was a pain in the ass to have me come back for a bail hearing on a traffic ticket and just wanted me to throw my client under the bus, but I opted for the bail hearing. Again this led to me citing the judicial cannon.
Again., I really didn’t think a bail hearing was necessary as there are no public safety concerns with a speeding ticket. This goes regardless of whether our client FTA in the first instance. Apparently we disagree on the second issue, of whether my client or I will be there for trial. Apparently from his ruling he has doubts counsel will show up. This needs to stop, we need to stand up to judges who impose bail on our traffic clients. I know if everyone got educated on the law and started opposing the bail, the court will give in.