"the united states attorney is the representative, not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and a very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocent suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor. Indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."

This elegant passage applies to District Attorneys who represent States and local communities as well. For example the goal and ideal is to make sure that when a defendant is charged with possession of drugs for sale he actually possessed the drugs and he possessed them with the intent to sell them, as opposed to possessing for personal use. Many times individuals are arrested when they have just purchased a large quaintly of a drug, i.e cocaine, marijuana, meth, etc. and there intent is to keep the drug for personal use. However, the mere fact that the quantity may be larger than one may use in one attempt the DA’s office may charge him of her with possession with intent to sell or distribute. This to me is not right. The prosecutors should have more than a mere hunch to accuse someone of such serious crime. Our Orange County Drug Possession and Sale Attorneys make sure that the prosecutors meet their burden by showing the jury or the judge that the drugs seized could very well be for personal use and that the DA needs to show more evidence of intent to sell. For instance, if the defendant was found with few cell phones, with a pay-owe sheet showing records of sale and monies owed, a scale to measure the drugs, or if the drugs were put in different baggies, then it would be reasonable for the DA to file the case as “sale” case.

Prior to SB 598, anyone convicted of a second-time DUI must serve at least 12 months of a two-year license suspension before applying for restricted status. The new law shortens the 12-month period to 90 days.

Similarly, a person convicted of a third-time DUI would lose his or her license completely for at least 12 months before he/she could apply to reduce the three year suspension. Now third time offenders only have to wait 6 months.

Those hoping to take advantage of this new law must agree to install an ignition interlock device (IID) and any vehicle owned by him/her.

If you have suffered your Second or Third DUI arrest or conviction contact Orange County DUI attorneys of Criminal Defense Team so that we may explain the ramifications of this new and whether it will be of any help to you. However, you should know that this law does not take effect until Summer of 2010 and the question remains whether it only applies to suspensions past that date or anyone suspended prior can take advantage of it as well.

Over the dissent of Chief Justice Roberts, Supreme Court let stand a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that a police officer can follow but cannot stop a suspected drunk driver's car until the officer observes the driver doing something suspicious, such as swerving into another lane.

According to Los Angeles Times this case is expected to open the door for further legal challenges to police stops that are prompted solely by a called-in tip from another driver. Many states have upheld car searches prompted by a called-in tip, as long as the vehicle matches the description given, the L.A. Times reported. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was behind the appeal to the U.S Supreme Court.

This case is particularly interesting to me as a friend recently was cited by an officer who did not even observe him drive. In this particular case, the driver was on a freeway and after he exited to get gas he was approached by a plain clothes detective who claimed that the driver was going 90 on the freeway. The detective then called for a unit to come all the way to where they were to cite the driver. This even though the officer who cited the driver had not even observed him drive or get out of the vehicle.

I consider this kind of practice to be a complete abuse of authority and the recent Supreme Court case ( although it deals with DUI stops) may help reign in “rouge” officials. Our Orange County DUI defense attorney have encountered many DUI cases which were initiated with call-in tips from people who may not have been completely truthful when calling the police. With this new ruling our Newport Beach DUI attorneys can now have a new tool to counter the District Attorney’s office.