Here is my review of the 2011 cases affecting DUI arrests:

Bullcoming v. New Mexico: The U.S. Supreme Court finds the confrontation clause is violated when an expert who neither performed nor observed the DUI chemical test testifies.  Also, the test results are not admissible as business records because the document was created solely for evidentiary purposes.

People v. Thomas: Cops stop Thomas for trumped up traffic stop.  Cops initiate DUI investigation, including giving Thomas PAS test.  Thomas passes, PAS, is released.  Cops use saliva from mouthpiece of PAS device to test Thomas' saliva against burglary they suspected him of committing.  Saliva admissible because Thomas could have wiped off saliva, he therefore gave up his legitimate expectation of privacy to the saliva on the mouthpiece.

People v. Vangelder: Defense expert testifies that breath sample collects alcohol up and down windpipe and in mouth, therefore reading is not accurate because sample is not comprised entirely of alveolar air.  Held: Expert can testify to this and its relevant to both .08 or above count and driving while ability impaired count.

People v. Alvarado: Lack of publication by itself doesn't render DUI checkpoint stop illegal, but lack of publication combined with other factors can.

People v. Carmona: If no other vehicle is affected by turn even if driver doesn't signal within 100 feet of turn, a stop for this reason is illegal and suppression is required.

Petrus v. DMV: License suspension reversed because defense counsel didn't receive blood test result until minutes before the DMV hearing.

People v. Nottoli: Arrest for being under the influence of controlled substance provides police with reasonable basis to search for evidence of that offense.

People v. Ferguson: Driver has legitimate expectation of privacy in car's black box data.

If you have questions concerning these cases from 2011 affecting DUI arrests and other areas of criminal law, do not hesitate to call me at (213) 479-5322 or visit my website.