California, My son is 19, he got a dui last summer and had his license suspended for a year because of his age. His suspension is up in about 3 weeks and last night he was arrested for being under the influence ( 1 beer ) even though he was not driving his friend was. He was told he violated his probation, My question is whether his license is going to be suspended again for another year or if it could be pleaded out to a lesser offense?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Zero Tolerance
- Thread starter johnjohn
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Both he and you should expect it to be suspended again. Both he and you should also expect additional penalties.
Final verdict
Well the public defender filed a pitchess motion because the officer put in his report that my son told him it was his alcohol which he did not. The pitchess motion was granted and all of a sudden the DA wanted to deal. Anyway he ended up getting a vop and 25 hrs community service. No license suspension and mip charges dropped. He has sworn off alcohol until over 21 and I hope he sticks to it.
Well the public defender filed a pitchess motion because the officer put in his report that my son told him it was his alcohol which he did not. The pitchess motion was granted and all of a sudden the DA wanted to deal. Anyway he ended up getting a vop and 25 hrs community service. No license suspension and mip charges dropped. He has sworn off alcohol until over 21 and I hope he sticks to it.
CdwJava
Senior Member
I'm not sure what part a Pitchess motion played in the whole thing, but I'll guess that the state would have dealt anyway.
A Pitchess motion is a request made by a defendant in a criminal action for access to information in the personnel file of an arresting police officer. Pitchess motions can also be made in civil actions, but they are rare. ... The name “Pitchess” comes from a 1974 California Supreme Court case, Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. The Pitchess process is now codified in California Evidence Code sections 1043-47.
The theory underlying a Pitchess motion is that a defendant should be entitled to any information that is relevant to his/her defense. If the arresting officer’s personnel file contains information that might bear on the defendant’s claim that the officer had engaged in misconduct, as a matter of fairness, the defendant should have access to that information.
Both the legislature and the courts, however, have recognized that the police officer whose records are sought has an equally compelling interest in maintaining the privacy of his/her personnel file. The Pitchess hearing process ... is designed to ensure an appropriate balance of those two competing interests.
Unless there was some reasonable belief that the officer's personnel file contained damning information regarding his truthfulness, this motion would likely have fallen flat. So, I doubt this motion is what compelled the DA to deal. he likely dealt because this is a low level case and when you have a VOP, you usually drop the low level offense in exchange for a guilty on the VOP.The theory underlying a Pitchess motion is that a defendant should be entitled to any information that is relevant to his/her defense. If the arresting officer’s personnel file contains information that might bear on the defendant’s claim that the officer had engaged in misconduct, as a matter of fairness, the defendant should have access to that information.
Both the legislature and the courts, however, have recognized that the police officer whose records are sought has an equally compelling interest in maintaining the privacy of his/her personnel file. The Pitchess hearing process ... is designed to ensure an appropriate balance of those two competing interests.
- Carl
The only reason I disagree with the pitchess motion not doing much good is because the da was asked to deal prior to this and rejected. The Dept this officer works for even sent their own attorney to try and block the motion but they were denied. Sounds like the info contained in the officers personel file was more than he was willing to share. The judge also seemed a little confused as to what the DA was basing his vop on considering they dropped the mip charge.
CdwJava
Senior Member
There could be any number of reasons for a change of heart. But, I don't see how Pitchess would have made one iota of difference. Unless you had some reason to believe that the officer had something in his background that would show a pattern or past history of untruthfulness, this motion would have almost certainly been denied - they are not allowed for fishing expeditions. But, maybe the judge in this case is known as a maverick and allows these sort of things ... that would be the only thing that leaps out as making SOME sense.
Agencies move to block Pitchess motions no matter WHAT might be in the file. If there is what is referred to as Brady material in the file, we might be obligated to disclose it to the DA anyway ... and he would be required to provide it to the defense if he had it.
My agency regularly opposes Pitchess motions and we usually win. The one time I recall we did not prevail, the judge tossed it after an in camera hearing with the info as there was nothing there.
Odd ... since a VOP does not have to do with a new charge, necessarily. Maybe this judge looks at things a little differently than others in the state.
- Carl
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">