A DUI verdict that was delivered in a small juvenile court has reverberated across the country. A judge in a Fort Worth Juvenile Court recently sentenced a 16-year-old boy to 10 years of probation after he confessed to charges arising out of a fatal drunk driving accident that occurred on a rural road. Four people were killed in the accident, and at the time of the crash, the teenager tested positive for a blood alcohol concentration level that was at least three times the legal limit of .08.

His defense lawyers brought to the stand a psychologist who testified in his defense that he suffered from a condition called affluenza. According to the psychologist, this was a syndrome that prevented children like this teenage boy, from learning that bad behavior can have serious consequences. As a result of the syndrome, the boy failed to realize that bad behavior and breaking the rules can have serious consequences, and hence, his poor judgment in driving under the influence of alcohol. The psychologist also brought attention to the fact that the boys parents had failed to punish him for equally poor behavior in the past.

Prosecutors understandably are livid at the judgment, especially since they had sought the maximum sentence in this case, which would have amounted to 20 years in prison. However, the lawyers were very successful in convincing the judge that what the boy needed was not time in prison, but rehabilitation.

Earlier this year, officials found mistakes in testing at the Orange County Crime Lab that put the results of hundreds of DUI alcohol tests in jeopardy. Now comes news that even more errors have been discovered at the same lab.

The announcement of the earlier errors was made after officials found mistakes in testing that likely produced incorrect lab test results. Those incorrect results are believed to have occurred over at least 5 months. Several persons, who submitted samples for alcohol testing, and whose test results were affected by the error, have already been contacted by the district attorney's office. Prosecutors have also contacted people who were convicted for driving under the influence or pleaded guilty to DUI, as a result of those botched DUI tests. Not surprisingly, these people are extremely upset about the fact that errors in testing, resulted in convictions for them.

The new error is believed to have been discovered during an audit of the lab's operations after the earlier errors were discovered. Under crime lab procedure, a blood test sample is tested twice using two different machines. The average reading is then taken. However, this error is believed to have occurred when the lab calibrated one of the machines, and failed to input the appropriate data in the software. That meant that the results were skewed by as much as .003 percentage points.

Public opinion in support of legalization has grown stronger in California, and a recent poll by Gallup estimated that as many as 50% of Americans are in favor of the legalization of pot. Soon, California could legalize marijuana, and companies are already experimenting with so-called pot breathalyzers that would help determine the amount of marijuana in a person’s system.

Obviously, before we have a breathalyzer on the market, it is first necessary to determine the maximum legally permissible marijuana level, similar to the permissible blood alcohol standard that we currently have to determine the incidence of DUI in California. Besides, according to experts, any kind of breathalyzer that is designed to help determine the presence of marijuana in the system is not likely to work like an alcohol breathalyzer, simply because there are several modes of consumption of marijuana. The different modes of consumption could lead to different quantities of marijuana showing up in a person’s system.

As California moves towards legalization of marijuana, it will be looking to other states that have already legalized the drug for lessons in this area. Currently, the only two states that have legalized marijuana are Washington and Colorado. In Washington, for instance, possession of an ounce of marijuana is legal, but it is not legal for a person to drive under the influence of 5 ng of THC per mL of blood. That level is already controversial on Washington, where experts have held that the limit is not scientifically accurate, or reliable. Many experts do seem to agree that it will be very difficult to come up with a standard legal limit that is accurate.

If you are driving in the Martinez area over the next few weeks, expect more numbers of DUI checkpoints. The increase in checkpoints is part of a special targeted effort to increase enforcement action by the Martinez Police Department.

According to the Police Department, the increased DUI enforcement is part of a new campaign that is being funded by a traffic safety grant. The grant, which amounts to approximately $21,515, comes from the California Office of Traffic Safety. The money will be used to specifically to enforce DUI laws, and reduce the numbers of drunk drivers on our streets.

As part of the increased DUI enforcement action, residents of Martinez can now expect to come across more numbers of DUI checkpoints. The grant will be used in efforts to reduce the numbers of people being killed and alcohol-related accidents across markets. It will be used not just to increase enforcement action against DUI offenders, but also to implement awareness campaigns that educate people about the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol. The campaign will also include specially trained DUI officers.

When police officers are trying to pull you over on suspicion of driving under the infant of alcohol, it is typically better to comply. Failure to do so may result in additional charges being filed against you.

A man in Cleveland who was driving under the influence of alcohol, refused to stop his car, even during a police chase. The police were alerted to the man's DUI, when a pedestrian called in to report an SUV driving at excessive speeds that nearly struck him. However, when the police responded to the scene, they found the SUV backing out of a McDonald's drive through. They began to give chase, but the man continued to drive on.

When the SUV finally came to a stop, the driver admitted that he continued driving because he wanted to finish his Big Mac!

The percentage of American teenagers, who admit to driving under the influence of alcohol, has dropped by more than 50% since 1991. However, every year, thousands of California teenagers are arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, resulting in long-term financial as well as other consequences.

Your underage child can be arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, even if he has a blood-alcohol concentration level of just .01%. That is because California’s zero tolerance laws allow persons to be arrested for driving impaired even if they have had just a few alcohol beverages, that measure at a .01% BAC.

If you are below the age of 21, you're not allowed to possess alcohol, or have a container of alcohol that is unsealed or opened in your car. If you are found with alcohol in your car, you can be sentenced to fines of up to $1,000, and could lose your license for up to one year. Your vehicle can also be impounded for a period of 30 days.

According to a study that was conducted recently by Caron Treatment Centers, summertime is when many college students and underage drinkers are more likely to indulge in inappropriate drinking that results in a DUI arrest.

During summer, every night is a holiday night, and therefore, an opportunity to drink for underage drinkers. A recent study by the Caron Treatments Centers outlines exactly how dangerous the issue of underage DUI in this country, and how little adults are aware of it.

As many as 41% of the adults in the study between the age of 18 and 40 believe that it is best for teenagers to learn to drink responsibly in high school, than wait until they reach the legal age of 21 years. As many as 31% of the teenagers in the study said that their parents accepted underage drinking, including allowing them to drink at home, allowing parties where alcohol was served, and even more dangerous, allowing them to drive after drinking.

There is no denying the fact that the National Football League has had a tremendous PR problem because of these frequent DUI arrests involving its players. The League has dealt with an avalanche of bad publicity over the past few years, with a number of athletes, both past and present, showing long-term signs of debilitation and disability due to frequent concussions while playing pro football. Now the National Football League is also in the uncomfortable position of having to defend many of its star players because of their bad behavior behind the wheel.

Some of that behavior has resulted in fatal accidents. For instance, last year, a fatal accident involving former Dallas Cowboys defensive tackle Josh Brent killed one of his teammates. The National Football League wants to target players like Brent, who are involved in serious DUI related accidents. Brent currently faces an intoxication manslaughter charge, and has retired from football.

In 2013, 10 NFL players were booked on DUI -related charges. In 2012, 17 NFL players were arrested on the same charges, including Brent. The League wants players convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing fatal accidents to receive mandatory suspensions from the sport.

News reports frequently print stories about arrests of people accused of driving under the influence in California. The media accounts often relay police suspicions that led to a traffic stop, field sobriety tests and other common allegations found in police accounts--the media serves a role in publishing important information.

A California DUI suspect is often hauled down to the jail for processing in the media accounts, and frequently the court of public opinion kicks in after a story is published.

Our system of justice includes checks and balances to protect constitutional rights, including due process concepts such as the presumption of innocence. Criminal defense lawyers act to challenge the government to help protect statutory and constitutional rights--protecting the integrity of the justice system. Criminal charges are properly dealt with in a court of law, rather than in the court of public opinion.

A three judge panel in Fresno County has ruled that the use of the map app on an iPhone is prohibited under California's traffic laws. A 58-year-old man who works at Fresno State University says that he was caught in traffic in early January 2012.

While stuck in bumper to bumper traffic on California 41 in Fresno, he says that he checked his map. But the map was not a paper map, but a map app on his iPhone. A California Highway Patrol motorcycle officer was right there, and pulled the driver over to issue a ticket for unlawful use of a cellphone in a motor vehicle.

The man challenged the traffic ticket in superior court arguing that he was not talking on the hand held cellphone, and further arguing that he was not texting while driving. He reportedly brought a paper map into court to show that use of a paper map is more cumbersome than the smartphone app that he allegedly had been using.

Law enforcement believes that a 32-year-old Morgan Hill, California man rented 6,000 square feet of space in three units of the commercial building. Morgan Hill officials say that changes had been made to the electrical system inside the warehouse.

Investigators say that 2,775 marijuana plants and 30 pounds of processed pot were seized from the warehouse. Investigators claim that the warehouse was outfitted with sophisticated marijuana growing equipment, as well as measures that authorities believe were intended to hide any odor of the marijuana grow from any outside sources.

Law enforcement concluded the warehouse raid and reportedly obtained a new warrant to search the home of a 32-year-old man who authorities believe can be linked to the marijuana operation. Police claim that more pot and equipment was located in a search of the home.

Police say that a man in his 70s crashed into a house Tuesday afternoon-the house reportedly is slated for demolition. Movers reportedly were at the house, removing items from the garage in preparation for the demolition project. Authorities say that the man who lost control of his vehicle struck one of the movers before crashing into the Palo Alto residence.

Police investigating the Tuesday afternoon car accident identified the driver of the sport utility vehicle involved in the wreck as a 73-year-old Palo Alto, California resident. During the accident investigation, police apparently suspected that alcohol may have been a factor in the incident. Ultimately, police arrested the Palo Alto driver on suspicion of felony driving under the influence.

Police say that the driver was not injured in the crash. However, a mover working at the site reported suffered moderate injuries, including a possible broken ankle, according to the Daily News.

Last December, this blog discussed a story where police used a trained dog to sniff a car seeking evidence of drugs during a Novato, California traffic stop. Courts generally have held that a dog-sniff outside a car is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore police do not need to obtain a warrant before using a dog outside a car. But the United States Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the legal analysis is different outside the front door of a home.

The issue rose to the high court on an appeal from a drug crime case out of Florida. The state high court had ruled that drugs discovered after police brought a trained drug sniffing dog to a home without a warrant were not admissible in a criminal trial against a resident of the home. Prosecutors appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the case, police say that they had received a tip that a marijuana growing operation was going on inside the home. An investigator brought his K-9 to the home and had the dog sniff the base of the front door.

Officials in Stanislaus County, California say that the Central Valley Gang Impact Task force led a 10-month investigation before launching a highly visible sweep last week as authorities arrested 14 people on charges ranging from murder to drug crimes. The investigation and arrests involved officers and agents from the federal state and local levels. While many of the people were arrested on federal criminal charges, at least seven were taken into custody on state crimes.

Many people believe that a task force probe looks solely at a distinct and individual alleged offense. But, a task force probe may be opened to investigate general crimes. The latest visible sweep involved arrests in a variety of state and federal criminal allegations that may not be connected to each other in any way.

Authorities claim that the nearly year-long probe looked into allegations of criminal activity, and law enforcement believes that at least one alleged offense may have links to the Nuestra Familia or the street level gang known as the Norteños. But, in the end, not all of the people arrested in the sweep have been linked to gangs, according to information from the Modesto Bee.

In 2010, federal judge ordered the release of a man who was sentenced under California's three strikes law in 1999. State officials delayed the man's release as the man's appeal works its way through the courts. State officials claim that technical issues in filing the criminal appeal justify holding the innocent man in prison until the courts rule on the legal issues. However, a federal magistrate ordered that the man be released pending the outcome of the appeal.

The release follows the federal court ruling finding the man innocent of the alleged third strike crime. The judge ruled that the man had not received proper representation in his criminal defense in the 1999 trial.

Despite the federal ruling finding the man "actually innocent" of the alleged crime, the legal issues are not necessarily over, according to KTLA. The man had been sentenced under California's three strikes law after being convicted for allegedly carrying a concealed knife during a 1998 bar fight in Northridge, California.

Police in Los Angeles have not provided a great deal of public information, but authorities claim that rap artist Too Short was arrested on driving under the influence and drug charges early Wednesday morning. The allegations apparently arose after some kind of stop--Reuters reports that the stop was a routine traffic stop, but, the New York Daily News claims more specifically that the officer made the stop to investigate the driver for DUI.

Police claim that during the investigatory stop the officer believed that the hip hop artist appeared to be under the influence. The officer says that he requested that Too Short perform field sobriety tests. However, authorities claim that the rap artist tried to flee on foot. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police claims that Too Short tripped after about a half of a city block while running and was taken into custody on suspicion of DUI.

Authorities claim that while sitting in the police car the rapper discarded undisclosed drugs in the back seat of the squad. Too Short was processed on the DUI allegations--the artist blew a 0.09 percent alcohol level during the investigation, according to TMZ.

A California state senator from San Francisco is seeking to give prosecutors the option to charge some drug crimes as a misdemeanor level offense. The proposal would not only reduce potential exposure to time behind bars for possession of drugs for personal use, but would also keep a felony off of a person's record, which can make it difficult for the person to later find a job.

Senator Mark Leno's proposal would not modify California's marijuana laws, as possession of a small amount of marijuana is already considered an infraction under state law. State law gives authorities the option to charge possession of methamphetamine for personal use as either a misdemeanor or felony offense. The new proposal seeks to expand that kind of discretion in cases involving allegations of possessing of small amounts of heroin, cocaine and other so-called "hard drugs."

Obviously, there is some opposition to modifying California's harsh drug possession laws. State Senator Jim Nielson believes that people who may possess small amounts of drugs may commit other crimes to later buy the drugs. He apparently wants to keep possession of small amounts of drugs as a felony level offense to punish suspects for speculative offenses that he believes may possibly happen at some later time.

Last fall, an off-duty Petaluma Police officer crashed a motorized scooter on the fourth fairway of the Rooster Run Golf Club. The police department held a benefit golf tournament at the public golf course October 5. The off-duty officer who crashed a scooter had worked the graveyard shift the night before the tournament and reported in the morning to drive a golf cart transporting "pin-up girls" around the course during the tourney and other tasks related to the event, according to the Press-Democrat.

At some point, authorities say that the officer borrowed a motorized scooter from a fellow officer and reportedly took a run onto the course. That is when he allegedly crashed, suffering undisclosed injuries. Officers and police brass were all over the course for the tournament, but after the wreck, the off-duty cop was not asked to perform field sobriety tests, nor did he submit any breath or blood sample.

Someone at the golf course called 911, and the officer was taken to Petaluma Valley Hospital for treatment. About a month passed, and Petaluma Police reportedly contacted the California Highway Patrol to open a DUI investigation related to the incident. Petaluma Police claim that the department had been looking into the incident and desired to have an independent investigation opened.

Police in Oakland, California arrested a parolee on suspicion of theft crimes after searching his cellphone Sunday morning. This blog has previously discussed a variety of issues where law enforcement needs to obtain a search warrant. However, Oakland Police say that no search warrant was necessary in Sunday's investigation because the man is on parole.

What law enforcement claims to have found in the cellphone search were pictures of a Gold-Rush era jewelry box and a pistol which were stolen in two separate alleged burglaries at the Oakland Museum. Law enforcement arrested the parolee after the investigation.

Police believe that the man is linked to a burglary at the museum on January 9 when the jewelry box disappeared, and also to a burglary November 12, when gold nuggets and gold-rush era pistols disappeared. However, for now at least, the man is charged with receiving stolen property related to the box.

When a person is on probation for a prior conviction, authorities tend to seek ways to allege a probation violation. Many probation violations may involve technical violations of a term or condition. However, some people may face allegations of a violation based upon new criminal charges. When probation violations are alleged with new charges, a person may face criminal consequences arising from the alleged violation, as well as in the new criminal case.

That type of combination was involved in the recent drunk driving charges that Bobby Brown was facing. The singer was arrested October 24 on suspicion of DUI. That was Brown's second DUI arrest during 2012, and the 44-year-old singer was still on probation for a March 2012 DUI when he was picked up last October in Los Angeles, California on the new DUI allegations. Authorities also say that Brown's license was suspended at the time of the October DUI arrest.

The singer did not personally appear in court Tuesday. However, his criminal defense lawyer entered a plea on behalf of Brown to resolve the criminal issues involved. Brown was ordered to serve 55 days in jail, but the jail time actually is divided among several different issues. The judge reported imposed 10 days each on the new DUI conviction on the conviction for driving while suspended. The court also ordered Brown to serve 35 days for the probation violation on the prior DUI.