Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
Second-Time DUI, West Covina, Motion to Suppress Denied
In September, 2023, just before midnight, our client was leaving a bar in Glendora. She was with a friend who commented to her that there was a police car sitting in a parking lot across the street from the bar. There was an officer inside the car, watching each person leave the bar.
Our client, age 53, then got into her new Acura and pulled out onto Route 66 to head eastbound. The Glendora police officer followed our client, pulling her over several blocks later after she made a right turn onto southbound Grand Avenue.
The reason for the stop, the officer told our client, was that client’s car did not have a front license plate, an alleged violation of Vehicle Code § 5200, and she made a right turn without using her turn signal, an alleged violation of Vehicle Code § 22108.
The client was then asked to perform various roadside gymnastic tests (“field sobriety tests”) and to give a breath sample into a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device, which she refused to do and was immediately arrested.
The client later submitted to a blood test and her blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was measured at 0.12%. She was then held at the Glendora Police Station for several hours before being released and signing a promise to appear in the West Covina Courthouse in about three months.
This was our client’s second DUI. Her first was just three years earlier, in 2020, also out of the West Covina Courthouse.
The client then called the attorney she had for her first DUI, who referred her to Greg Hill & Associates.
The client then called Greg Hill & Associates and spoke with Greg Hill. She described why she was pulled over and Greg commented that it seemed quite odd that a police officer could see the front of the client’s car while following the car from behind. Greg also stated that a car does not violate Vehicle Code § 22108 by making a turn without using a turn signal unless the subject vehicle’s turn affects the safety of another vehicle. People v. Holiman (2022) 76 Cal. App. 5th 825 and People v. Carmona (2011) 185 Cal. App. 4th 1385.
Greg then commented that it would be interesting to see the MVARS (mobile video audio recording system) or “dash cam” tape to see if it showed any other car being affected by our client’s turn.
The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and Greg Hill appeared for the client’s arraignment in the West Covina Courthouse. The police report was silent as to how the police officer could see the front of our client’s vehicle from behind. The report was also silent as to stating our client’s turn without a turn signal affected the safety of any other vehicle.
Greg Hill & Associates then prepared, filed and served a motion to suppress under Penal Code § 1538.5. The motion asked the judge to find that the traffic stop at issue was illegal and that therefore, all evidence gathered by police following the stop, particularly our client’s BAC, was inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Eventually, there was a hearing on the motion to suppress and the arresting officer testified in court. When Greg asked the officer how he managed to observe the front of our client’s car while he was driving behind our client, he stated under oath that prior to following her, he was in a parking lot and saw that our client’s car lacked a front license plate. He then followed our client and pulled her over for what he thought was a violation of Vehicle Code § 22108.
Greg asked the officer if his car was closest to our client when she made the turn from Route 66 eastbound to southbound Grand without using her turn signal. He asked if his car was indeed closest to our client. Greg then asked him if any other driver had to slam on the brakes or swerve away to avoid a collision when our client made turn. The officer said no one had to take any evasive maneuver.
Exasperated by the officer’s “convenient” testimony that he first observed our client in a parking lot, Greg asked the officer if he was taught to include all information necessary for a traffic stop in his police report. He said he was taught this. Greg then asked why he omitted any description of first seeing our client’s car in a parking lot. The officer said he made a mistake.
The judge ultimately denied the motion to suppress, but commented that just based on the police report, he would have granted the motion. The key to the ruling was the officer’s testimony in court that he observed our client’s car in the parking lot before he started following her.
We offer this summary as a cautionary tale and as an example of what often happens at hearings on motions to suppress: the officer offers testimony that “cures” the otherwise insufficient police report.
Our client, age 53, then got into her new Acura and pulled out onto Route 66 to head eastbound. The Glendora police officer followed our client, pulling her over several blocks later after she made a right turn onto southbound Grand Avenue.
The reason for the stop, the officer told our client, was that client’s car did not have a front license plate, an alleged violation of Vehicle Code § 5200, and she made a right turn without using her turn signal, an alleged violation of Vehicle Code § 22108.
The client was then asked to perform various roadside gymnastic tests (“field sobriety tests”) and to give a breath sample into a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device, which she refused to do and was immediately arrested.
The client later submitted to a blood test and her blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was measured at 0.12%. She was then held at the Glendora Police Station for several hours before being released and signing a promise to appear in the West Covina Courthouse in about three months.
This was our client’s second DUI. Her first was just three years earlier, in 2020, also out of the West Covina Courthouse.
The client then called the attorney she had for her first DUI, who referred her to Greg Hill & Associates.
The client then called Greg Hill & Associates and spoke with Greg Hill. She described why she was pulled over and Greg commented that it seemed quite odd that a police officer could see the front of the client’s car while following the car from behind. Greg also stated that a car does not violate Vehicle Code § 22108 by making a turn without using a turn signal unless the subject vehicle’s turn affects the safety of another vehicle. People v. Holiman (2022) 76 Cal. App. 5th 825 and People v. Carmona (2011) 185 Cal. App. 4th 1385.
Greg then commented that it would be interesting to see the MVARS (mobile video audio recording system) or “dash cam” tape to see if it showed any other car being affected by our client’s turn.
The client then retained Greg Hill & Associates and Greg Hill appeared for the client’s arraignment in the West Covina Courthouse. The police report was silent as to how the police officer could see the front of our client’s vehicle from behind. The report was also silent as to stating our client’s turn without a turn signal affected the safety of any other vehicle.
Greg Hill & Associates then prepared, filed and served a motion to suppress under Penal Code § 1538.5. The motion asked the judge to find that the traffic stop at issue was illegal and that therefore, all evidence gathered by police following the stop, particularly our client’s BAC, was inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Eventually, there was a hearing on the motion to suppress and the arresting officer testified in court. When Greg asked the officer how he managed to observe the front of our client’s car while he was driving behind our client, he stated under oath that prior to following her, he was in a parking lot and saw that our client’s car lacked a front license plate. He then followed our client and pulled her over for what he thought was a violation of Vehicle Code § 22108.
Greg asked the officer if his car was closest to our client when she made the turn from Route 66 eastbound to southbound Grand without using her turn signal. He asked if his car was indeed closest to our client. Greg then asked him if any other driver had to slam on the brakes or swerve away to avoid a collision when our client made turn. The officer said no one had to take any evasive maneuver.
Exasperated by the officer’s “convenient” testimony that he first observed our client in a parking lot, Greg asked the officer if he was taught to include all information necessary for a traffic stop in his police report. He said he was taught this. Greg then asked why he omitted any description of first seeing our client’s car in a parking lot. The officer said he made a mistake.
The judge ultimately denied the motion to suppress, but commented that just based on the police report, he would have granted the motion. The key to the ruling was the officer’s testimony in court that he observed our client’s car in the parking lot before he started following her.
We offer this summary as a cautionary tale and as an example of what often happens at hearings on motions to suppress: the officer offers testimony that “cures” the otherwise insufficient police report.
In this case, we then resolved the case with the client pleading no contest to a violation of Vehicle Code § 23152(b) and being placed on four years of informal (summary) probation on the following terms and conditions: payment of a court fine of $500, plus penalties and assessments (less credit for two days actual custody, for a total of $1407), enrollment in and completion of the SB-38 eighteen month alcohol awareness program, performance of ten days of community labor (in lieu of 96 hours in county jail), and attendance at both the Hospital and Morgue (HAM) program and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) victim impact panel.
