Case Results Update

The following is a brief list of results obtained

by Criminal Defense Attorney, David J. Givot

(310) 699-0070 - www.DavidGivot.com

Please understand that every case is different and there are many factors that determine how a case will resolve. The following are a few recent case results for The Law Office of David J. Givot. These results are not a guarantee or prediction of how your specific case will result.

Third Strike Felony Providing Marijuana to a Minor: Client, just 25 days away from completing parole and in possession of a valid California Medical Marijuana Card, was arrested after an individual standing near him and among a group of others, was seen by police smoking marijuana from a pipe in public. The individual was 16-year-old.

My client was arrested after the frightened teen told police that my client had provided it through is California card, despite witness statements to the contrary. Because of his two prior strikes, the District Attorney sought 25-years to life in prison for my client.

After extensive & thorough private investigation and securing the cooperation & support of his parole officer, I was able to negotiate a settlement directly with the Judge, bypassing the DA altogether, and my client will be home in approximately 13 months.

Felony Possession of Controlled Substance & Deadly Weapon: Client was arrested during a raid on the home in which he was renting a room. Although the client was neither named in the warrant nor believed to be involved in any illegal activity, he was taken into custody and his rented room searched.

During the search, law enforcement discovered and the client was arrested for possession of a small amount of marijuana and several pills, later identified as Hydrocodone and Phenobarbital along with a rifle, a handgun, and a Billy club.

After some simple research, I was able to show the DA the blatant flaws in the Police Department's investigation. Case dismissed.

Misdemeanor Theft: Client was seen on security video concealing DVDs in his pants and exiting the store. He admitted to both store security and Police that he had stolen the DVDs. His record showed similar conduct in his passed.

He was arraigned and charged with the misdemeanor.

After negotiation with the District Attorney, the complaint was amended to include petty theft as a civil infraction and the misdemeanor was dismissed. No Jail. No Probation. No Criminal Conviction.

Misdemeanor Driving with Suspended License: Client was cited and charged with three criminal counts when he was discovered driving after his license had been suspended because of a recent DUI. After considerable negotiation with the City Attorney, two of the three charges were dismissed and the client was sentenced to unsupervised probation and NO Jail!

Felony Assault with a Deadly Weapon: Client was arrested and booked on suspicion of Assault with a Deadly Weapon after a fight in which his opponent was sent to the hospital by ambulance with serious injuries, including a severed temporal artery.

Within hours of receiving the call, I had met with the client in custody, investigated the scene of the incident, and reviewed the surveillance video - before the Police had reviewed it.

I concluded from the evidence I had gathered, that the opponent was the aggressor and that my client had a clear case of self defense. I met with the head DA, before the Police even submitted the file, and the case was summarily rejected when it arrived. Case dismissed before it was filed.

Felony Commercial Burglary: Client, a sworn peace officer, was arrested and booked on suspicion of Commercial Burglary when it was discovered that, without her knowledge, her shopping companion - now former friend - had shoplifted merchandise from a Beverly Hills department store.

Within hours of receiving the call, I had been to the store, met with the lead detective, and reviewed the surveillance video that showed no criminal conduct by my client.

The following morning, I met with the charging DA along with the detective and discussed their lack of evidence against my client.

Although her companion was arraigned. No charges filed against my client.

Felony Drug Possession: Client was charged with felony transportation & possession of marijuana for sale. After negotiating with the DA and the Judge, my client received probation for 18 months after which the charge can be reduced to a misdemeanor and then expunged. No State Prison, No Jail.

Felony Cocaine Possession: Client was charged with possession of cocaine in a vehicle. After I demanded additional evaluation of the evidence, including finger print analysis to link the drugs to my client... All charges dropped, case dismissed.

Felony Drug Possession with a Gun Enhancement: Client, a medical professional, was charged with felony possession of meth in a vehicle while also in possession of a loaded handgun. after negotiation with the DA, client received only unsupervised probation and diversion classes. No State Prison, No Jail!

Felony Identity Theft: Client was charged with multiple felony counts when it was discovered that he had used the identity of another when he was arrested and convicted for DUI. Client was facing 19 years in state prison. After filing and arguing a variety of motions, the client received 180 days of recommended work furlough followed by probation. No State Prison. No Jail.

Multiple Misdemeanor Counts: Client was charged with drug possession, receiving stolen property, false vehicle registration, and driving on a suspended license...ALL IN ONE TRAFFIC STOP! After arguing certain motions, the client received only 4 days in private jail followed by probation.

Misdemeanor Possession of Meth: Client was charged with possession of meth in a vehicle. Probation and diversion only. No Jail.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, charged, or even accused of a crime, call The Law Office of David J. Givot at (310) 699-0070 for a FREE confidential consultation or visit www.DavidGivot.com

Perception is Reality, Until it's Not

Perception is Reality, Until it's Not.

by David Givot

When did it become inconvenient to discover all of the facts before casting judgment? It seems that this new world of instant information and instant gratification has mutated into a world of instant castigation. It seems the world is all too willing to believe and react to what we think we see without bothering to understand what we actually see. Consequently, by the time the dust settles and reality is revealed, the damage of that reaction is done.

Such may be the case for two FDNY Dispatchers accused of ignoring pleas for help and letting a twenty-five-year-old pregnant woman die.

Last month, Eutisha Rennix, a cashier at a bakery in downtown Brooklyn, New York, near the fire department's headquarters, developed shortness of breath. EMT/Dispatchers Jason Green and Melissa Jackson were inside the bakery at the time. That is about all we know for sure.

The rest of the story, according to various news reports and statements made by those closest to the individuals involved, is anything but clear. One alleged witness paints a picture of a woman falling dead to the floor, at the feet of the EMTs who callously ignore her and leave the store sipping coffee and [metaphorically] laughing. Another says the woman collapsed in a back room and not within the EMTs sight. Still another says the EMTs saw that she was having difficulty breathing, while yet another says that the two were only told that the woman was in the back of the bakery feeling ill. So what really happened? We don't know.

Nevertheless, not knowing what really happened that morning has not dissuaded outlets like the NY Post, CBS, and others from reporting the unknown as fact. Perhaps the most scathing and, at that moment, unsubstantiated criticism came from the Mayor himself. Shortly after the incident, with no more information than what you have read so far, Michael Bloomberg told a TV news crew: "There's no excuse whatsoever...Drop your coffee and go help somebody if they're dying. Come on." What happened to the days of standing by your employees or at least remaining neutral until the investigation is complete?

If it is true that the two could have done something other than what they did or didn't do, then shame on them and let the punishment fit the act. But, as I write and as you read, we don't know what really happened and nobody seems to care.

Well, I care. I care because two careers have been irrevocably tainted if not ruined altogether by an angry mob quick to judge but slow to verify; vilified by the City that, moments earlier trusted them with their collective lives.

If it is ultimately determined that the two were negligent or worse, then let the chips fall where they may. But until then, slow down, take a deep breath and reserve judgment. And always remember that the fingers pointing at them can just as quickly be pointed at you.

"The Legal Guardian for EMS," David Givot, appears on CNN to defend two FDNY EMTs accused of allowing a pregnant woman to die: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2009/12/22/jvm.emt.woman.distress.cnn.html

Complacency Kills…Patients and Careers

Prologue
I did my paramedic internship at Los Angeles City, Rescue 66, in the spring of 1989. You might think I am crazy, but I recall that as being one of the best times of my life. My preceptors, Mike Samudio and Kelly McKee were clinically tough, but very fair. They did what they had to do to make sure that I could do what I had to do when I had to do it.

What I remember, and appreciate, the most is that they took the time and spent the energy to make sure that I always considered and appreciated the role of a paramedic from the patient’s perspective. With them, even the twentieth patient in as many hours received the attention, respect, and care as the first. The sweet old lady with chest pain, the juiced-up gang-banger with a gunshot wound, and the homeless drunk with a bellyache since 1964 were all treated with the same attention to proper care (as patients) and proper treatment (as human beings).

As it is with many interns, about half way though my internship I became too comfortable with my preceptors and my skills. I recall one particular incident like it was yesterday. It was the middle of the night; I was tired and cranky and faced with (another) young woman who was emotionally upset over something her boyfriend had done. She was in no distress and the very thorough assessment – including an EKG – revealed nothing more than big trouble for boyfriend when he returned. Nevertheless, with the Captain, Engine Company, family members, and preceptors watching, I presented her with disposition options: First, I told her, we could take her to the hospital if she desired. Or, I continued, she could stay home with her family and see her private doctor in the morning. Had I stopped at those two options, there would be nothing about which to write. Of course, I did not. Her third choice, I presented smugly, was “…or we could take you to Disneyland. That always makes me feel better…”

I could see the words as they left my mouth and hit the air. They would not be retrieved. The damage was done. The simultaneous and confounded looks of disappointment on my preceptor’s faces said it all. I am reasonably sure that, if I had a tail, it would have instantly lowered and tucked itself between my legs.

When the dust settled, and there was a lot of dust, Kelly McKee pulled me aside and calmly gave me some of the best advice I have ever received: “Dave,” he said, “your not going to like everyone you come in contact with. Sometimes you’re going to be tired and sometimes you may not want to be there. But, as long as you are, remember this: Complacency Kills. The minute you begin to treat people differently or cut corners, someone is going to die…and it could be you.”

I have never forgotten that lesson. I have passed that wisdom on to every intern I ever precepted and tried to apply it in my daily life. Now, I pass it on to you.

I shared my story, albeit rife with sentimentality, to provide a bridge from conceptuality to tangibility; to encourage some reflection on your own career as we analyze a case where complacency did kill.

Wright v City of Los Angeles
On May 19, 1979, witnesses saw a fat man picking up Jerry Wright and hitting him up against the side of a car as Wright screamed, “Help, police, I'm being robbed.” Wright tried to get into the car, but the other man pulled him away and continued to beat him. Moments later, a man came out of an apartment across the street and hit the fat man, who fell under the car. The man then helped Wright into the car. When he started it up, it rolled backwards, and then stopped; Wright just sat there.

Moments later, two police officers arrived; one had his gun drawn and pointed at Wright and ordered him to come out of the car, but he did not comply. He remained slouched and leaning against the back of the driver's seat. Another witness urged the police not to shoot, saying that Wright could not get out of the car because he was beaten up or hurt, and that the man on the ground had done it. The officers opened the passenger door and pulled him out, half into the gutter. One of the officers poked him with a baton, but he did not move. The other officer pushed him over onto his stomach, put his hands behind him and handcuffed him. He was lying on a grass parkway, with his head leaning over the sidewalk; one of the officers kicked him between his neck and shoulders and moved his head back onto the grass.

Witnesses heard Wright loudly complaining that his head hurt, that he hurt all over and needed an ambulance. The police called for paramedics. Soon after, an ambulance with two paramedics arrived to find numerous police vehicles and officers, and the fat man lying in the street. A police officer directed one paramedic to Wright; the other attended the fat man. The paramedic did not recall being told Wright had been complaining of pain or that he hurt all over and had asked for an ambulance. He knew that there had been a fight and assumed that was why the paramedics had been called, he never asked the police why they had been called.

The paramedic approached Wright and asked him what was wrong or what had happened; Wright did not respond. He asked Wright if he was hurt and Wright said he was not hurt; he did not complain that he hurt all over. The paramedic did not ask Jerry a series of orientation questions. While the paramedic was talking to Wright, he was examining him visually to determine why they had been called to the scene. He then did what he called “…the 60-second examination…” a brief visual examination of the body to determine if there is a life-threatening situation. It was the only examination he did; he did not check a pulse or blood pressure. He did not recall if he touched Wright’s skin, although he could have done so while examining his body for visible injuries. After the 60-second examination, he told a police officer if Wright was to be booked he should probably see a doctor first; the paramedics then left.

Wright died at the scene a short time later from Sickle Cell Crisis. The paramedic was found liable and the plaintiffs were awarded millions.

Wright v. City of Los Angeles has become a landmark case for EMS providers everywhere the duty to act is at issue. Recall from my column “Are You Just Down the Street From a Lawsuit,” the Zepeda case established that staging away from certain non-secured situations did not violate the provider’s duty to act, particularly because the paramedics never initiated patient contact before the police arrived. In Wright, however, the scene was secure and the paramedic initiated patient care by approaching, asking questions, and making a substantive disposition.

When it comes to a provider’s duty to act, most every jurisdiction follows the same essential rules: The provider has a duty to act as would a reasonable provider with the same level of training and skill, in the same locality, and under the same or similar circumstances. Acting reasonably is not rocket science, yet so many providers continue to stumble around the standard, guided by what they think they know rather than what they actually know.

One of the first questions for the jury was: did the paramedic have a duty to act? Of course he did. He was summoned to the scene of an emergency to perform the duties for which he was hired; to empirically determine the patient’s condition through the use of available diagnostic tools and assessment skills. Likewise, he had a duty not to rely solely on the statements or non-statements of others, including the patient himself.

In this instance, a “reasonable” paramedic would have asked more about the circumstances which led to the response. A “reasonable” paramedic would have been motivated by the story of a fight to do a physical assessment including vital signs. A “reasonable” paramedic would have wanted to know about medical history because that is what reasonable paramedics do; like lawyers, they gather as much information as possible to get to the truth, or to at least reach an informed conclusion. A “reasonable” paramedic knows that what you see is not always what you get.

The next question for the jury was: did the paramedic breach the duty? Where one owes a duty and fails to perform, he is in breach. This was not a stretch for the jury and it will not be a stretch for you either. Chances are, unless you are absolutely clueless, you already know as you walk away from a call whether you did everything you should have – according to local training, protocols, procedures, and standards of care, not according to your psychic abilities and unquestionable experience. If you didn’t, then the possibility that you missed something, as infinitesimal as it may seem, will follow you wherever you go… at least until the statute of limitations runs out.

The last questions for the jury included: were there damages and did the paramedic’s breach of his duty cause them?

Determination of cause essentially boils down to two words: “But for…” But for the paramedic failing to do the full and complete assessment which was his duty, would Mr. Wright have died as, how, and when he did? The truth is there is no way of knowing.

On the other hand, we do know that if the paramedic had done a full and complete assessment and learned of the sickle cell disease and transported the patient to the hospital, rather than passively suggesting to the police that a doctor look at him if he is to be booked, Mr. Wright would have received advanced medical attention and his odds of survival would have improved exponentially over what he received face down in the grass.

All too often paramedics develop preconceived notions and even generate conclusions before they arrive on the scene. Sometimes that works. If you know you are going to the scene of a vehicle roll-over, it is safe to assume that a trauma center is a probable destination. Or if you are called to the scene of an overdose, person not breathing, you may reasonably forecast the use of Narcan®. Experience tells you certain things.

However, a drunk is not always a drunk. Each patient and every situation is unique, even those you have seen a thousand times. And you will never know until you have done a comprehensive and thorough assessment. Would you do a 12 lead EKG on a 34 year-old female with abdominal pain? I recall an afternoon when my partner and I did, mostly because we could. Wouldn’t you know it? She was having an MI.

As long as I live I will never understand how some providers continue to find a disadvantage to doing a full and complete assessment; how, as a matter of course, they rationalize circumstances where it’s just to burdensome to check vital signs and ask all of the necessary and appropriate questions. Perhaps it was my training, or maybe it’s just me. But it will never make sense.

Next time you find yourself on scene with “nothing,” I suggest you prove it. Because, when you forget...you will need me.


Wright v. City of Los Angeles: 219 Cal.App.3d 318, 268 Cal.Rptr. 309 Cal.App. 2 Dist.,1990.
Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles: 223 Cal.App.3d 232, 272 Cal.Rptr. 635 Cal.App. 2 Dist.,1990.
Torts-Cases and Materials: Prosser, Wade and Schwartz, 10th (2000)

Sometimes When You Lose, You Win

When I was a Paramedic, some of the most difficult days involved witnessing the senseless violence and death that have become commonplace in society. I remember a man who was shot in the stomach for the rims on his car. I remember holding the lifeless body of a four-year-old who had choked to death while eating a hamburger alone in his bedroom. I remember the 18-month-old who was raped by her babysitter's boyfriend. I remember the way I felt inside when there was nothing more I could do, though I had done everything possible.

As a Criminal Defense Lawyer, the most difficult days are not too different and I had one of them last week.

My client, a 31-year-old black man with two strikes on his record and just days away from cleanly completing three years of parole, was arrested and charged with furnishing marijuana to a minor.

It seems my client was one among a group of individuals standing together in an alley behind a home. One of the individuals in the group produced and began smoking marijuana from a pipe. In the ultimate demonstration of bad timing, a police car turned into the alley and witnessed the individual smoking. Naturally, the officer commenced an investigation and called for backup.

When the officer questioned my client, he was immediate, honest, and up-front. "Do you have 'anything' on you?" the officer asked. "Yes," my client answered, "I have a little bit of weed and my California Medical Marijuana Card." He produced both for the officer and further explained his status as a parolee as required by law. In keeping with department policy, the officer cuffed my client and sat him in the patrol car.

However, when my client told the officer about the medical marijuana card, the other three individuals - mere acquaintances of my client - seized the opportunity to save their collective skins. The officer quickly identified the [the only] individual who had been seen smoking as being 16-years-old. "Where did you get the weed?" The officer asked of the boy, now fearful of what his father would do to him when he got home. Knowing that he had pulled it from his own pocket, he nervously told the officer, "he (my client) gave it to me because he has one of them cards that makes it legal." The other two chimed in with their sudden agreement, "...yeah, that dude has a card...it's legal." And that was all the officer needed.

The boy was sent home with his parents and the other two were released at the scene. My client was booked, processed, and charged with a felony. The police report and the witness statement had more holes than a block of Swiss cheese, but one thing was consistent: the witness statements all matched and were in diametric opposition to my client's story.

At the arraignment, the District Attorney made no plea offer. "This is a third strike," he told me, "we want 25 to life." While I was dumbfounded by the coldness, I was not surprised. A conviction of third striker is just what an up-and-comer needs to boost his résumé. It didn't matter. My client was factually innocent of the charges against him. I was ready to fight. Nevertheless, in the interest of full due diligence, I did ask the Judge if the Court was willing to extend an offer. And much to my surprise, the Court offered to strike the strikes and give my client the statutory minimum of three years at half time; with good time credits he would likely be out in about a year.

Graciously, the Judge gave us a week to consider the offer. My client went back to jail and I went to work. I had five work days and a weekend to carefully evaluate and determine the strength of their evidence, the strength of our evidence, and to find any other evidence that could help...or hurt.

By the end of the week my private investigator had interviewed everyone involved and even found a missing witness who had left the scene just moments before the police arrived (no, there was no connection). Although the minor told my investigator that someone other than my client handed him the marijuana, he would not fess up to the fact that my client did not even provide it.

By the end of the week I had employed - at my own expense - another Criminal Defense Attorney and a legal researcher to work with me to uncover and consider every possibility. We all worked overtime.

Was the boy an accomplice? Not within the statutory meaning. Was the boy's statement that my client did not physically hand the marijuana to him relevant? Not the way "furnishing" is defined and applied in the case law. Was the fact that my client did not know they boy, much less that he was under 18 helpful. Nope. Strict liability. What about the holes in their story... that they didn't know my client, but that he gave them free weed? What about the other stuff they said (but I cannot discuss here)? The only way to challenge it would be my client testifying at trial, where the DA would be able to ask my client about his previous felony convictions - even though they were not drug related. The jury is going to believe a two-striker over the testimony of three or four others with minimal or no records at all? Not likely. And not worth risking the rest of this man's life.

By Friday, I was exhausted as were my options. A private investigator, a legal researcher, and two attorneys had spent countless hours looking for a way to exonerate my client. To no avail.

As I drove to the jail to deliver the inevitable advice, I racked what was left of my brain. Nothing. When I got there, I looked him in the eye and broke the bad news. "We can take this all the way...and we might even win, but if we don't you are going to spend most of the rest of your life in prison... all the while knowing you could have been out in a year. I understand the principle, but sometimes when you lose, you really win." Had he wanted to go all the way, I would have taken him there and the fight would have been tough. But the risk was just too high. I advised him to accept the Judge's offer.

Driving away from the jail, I felt a burn in my gut. I just advised an innocent man to accept a year of prison. As I drove, in a last ditch effort and with really nothing to lose, I called the DA. The call was friendly and nice, but the bottom line was simply stated: "...this office never extended any offer. We want your guy for twenty-five to life on the third strike. You want me to make a better offer than the one we never made to begin with? I admire your fortitude and your client is lucky, but it's not going to happen."

As I drove back to my office, with the setting sun piercing through the clouds, I replayed everything in my head: Two-striker. Marijuana card. Group of strangers. Marijuana smoke. And I was reminded of a sound bit of advice that Warren Oates offered Roy Scheider in the movie Blue Thunder: "When you're walking on eggshells, don't hop."

When you find yourself in trouble with the law, I will fight for you with every ounce of strength I have...but I will always tell you how it really is.

The Law Office of David J. Givot

Knowing a Little Science Never Hurts

What does

The Highway Safety Desk Book

say about

DUI Breath Testing Instruments?

The more you know about what "they" know, the better able you will be to understand and protect your rights when the time comes.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) annually publishes a list of breath testing instruments rigorously examined for accuracy and approved by NHTSA for their ability to accurately determine breath alcohol concentration, and thus blood alcohol concentration. The department of health or other appropriate agency in each state reviews the NHTSA list and test results, and issues a list of devices approved for use by law enforcement agencies in that particular state. The following is an excerpt from NHTSA.

Captured Samples
Exhaled air can be categorized into essentially three types of samples: tidal breath air, reserve breath air, and alveolar breath air. Tidal breath air is air exhaled in the course of normal breathing. It is the most shallow of the three types. Reserve breath air is exhaled when the body is exerted. It is produced through deeper breathing than tidal breath air, but great volumes of air are both inhaled and exhaled with little residence in the lung. Alveolar breath air is deep lung air. Since breath testing instruments are intended to measure indirectly the concentration of alcohol in the blood, it is essential for accuracy that the breath sample captured by the instrument for analysis be representative of the air in the alveoli of the lung, because it is in the alveoli that the 2100:1 equilibrium ratio between alcohol in the breath and alcohol in the blood occurs.

Infrared Instruments
Infrared breath measuring instruments operate on the principle that each chemical compound has unique infrared energy absorption characteristics. Ethyl alcohol absorbs energy in the 3.42 micron region of the infrared spectrum. The amount of alcohol contained in a sample can be calculated by observing energy loss when a known energy is applied to the sample. In the infrared devices, infrared energy is projected through a breath sample. A photo-detector identifies a decrease in wave amplitude caused by the absorption of energy by the alcohol. The amount of energy absorbed is equal to the breath alcohol concentration. The greater the alcohol concentration, the lower the wave amplitude. A computer on the instrument determines the breath alcohol content based upon the amount of energy loss, and then applies the 2100:1 conversion ratio to provide a digital readout of the suspect's blood alcohol content.

Because infrared instruments are based upon infrared absorption spectra, which are chemically unique, they cannot be influenced by compound such as acetone, which may have some chemical characteristics in common with ethyl alcohol. In fact, some infrared instruments also provide data on the concentrations of other compounds contained in the breath sample as well as that of alcohol.

Wet Chemical Instruments
When infrared instruments are not used, law enforcement generally uses wet chemical instruments, which operate on the basis of color changes produced through the chemical reaction of ethyl alcohol with chromate salts. These devices obtain a measured volume of alveolar breath and pass that sample through a known volume and concentration of a solution of chromate salt and acid. Chromate salt is yellow. As it reacts with the alcohol in the breath sample, it is chemically altered, resulting in a lighter color. The higher the alcohol concentration, the greater the color change.

A wet chemical instrument measures the difference between the light transmittance of a standard chromate\acid solution and the light transmittance of a sample solution. The difference in transmittance measured is directly proportional to the amount of alcohol in the breath sample.
Preliminary Breath Testing Instruments

PBT instruments are portable instruments for the purpose of BAC screening as part of the pre-arrest field testing. The suspect driver blows for several seconds through a plastic or glass tube, and the PBT provides an instantaneous determination of blood alcohol content.

In most jurisdictions, the legal basis for the use of these instruments is contained in the implied consent laws. While results of a PBT generally are not admissible as evidence of DWI, they do provide officers with additional objective information to establish probable cause for arrest and further chemical testing. They also help to detect persons who may be suffering from an illness or injury such as diabetes or head injury and are in need of chemical treatment, but would otherwise be mistaken for an intoxicated person. There are essentially three types of PBTs: electro-chemical, semi-conductor, and disposable chemical.

In electro-chemical PBTs, alcohol in the breath is absorbed into a fuel cell where it is oxidized, producing electrical current. The higher the alcohol content of the breath, the greater the current output of the fuel cell. By measuring the current produced, the instrument determines the breath alcohol content, and the BAC conversion is displayed with the aid of a computer chip. In semi-conductor PBTs, alcohol increases the electrical output of the semi-conductor. By measuring the voltage output, the breath alcohol content can be determined and the BAC conversion is displayed.

Disposable chemical PBTs are glass or plastic tubes containing a measured amount of the chemical, which is reactive with alcohol. As the suspect exhales through the tube, alcohol contained in the breath reacts with the chemical contained within. The greater the breath alcohol content, the greater the chemical reaction observed.

Non-Invasive or Passive Alcohol Sensors
Passive alcohol sensors (PAS) are instruments that detect the presence of alcohol in normally expelled breath. They require no cooperation from the driver. During the roadside interview of the driver and examination of documents, the officer places the PAS within six inches of the driver's mouth. It contains a small fan which samples the ambient air for examination. An electro-chemical mechanism analyzes the air for the presence of alcohol. Some instruments are concealed within a flashlight and can be used as a passive or active detector. NHTSA studies indicate these devices are effective during sobriety checkpoints when the decision whether or not to continue breath testing must be made quickly.

When the Police Have Questions...

It is natural to want to defend yourself, and this is where most people get into trouble.

Exercising your rights and looking out for your own best interest does not make you a bad person. And it does not mean you are or feel guilty about anything. Nevertheless, law enforcement is trained to make you feel like a bad person when you do seek counsel, but don't be swayed. If you know or even suspect that you a subject in a criminal investigation, it is critical that you consult legal counsel immediately. Do not talk to law enforcement officials, potential witnesses or anyone else without first speaking with an attorney - and DON'T let anyone make you believe that you MUST talk without counsel present.

When you are approached by anyone with questions about a crime or when you come home to find a detective's business card on your door with a note that says, "...please call..." remember, what you do and say right now can have a dramatic effect on the rest of your life... even if you are not involved. Catastrophic consequences are not uncommon for people who were lured into saying the wrong thing to the wrong person.

Do not speak to or trust anyone other than your defense attorney.

It's no secret that the goal of law enforcement is to build cases that can lead to a criminal conviction. Prosecutors and investigators are willing to take their time and expend tremendous resources to build a case against you. No matter what they say, their job is not to protect your rights. It is to get a conviction.

Finally, until you have been arrested, you have no Miranda Rights against self-incrimination, that is to say: Anything that you say can and will be used against you. When you voluntarily talk to law enforcement - or anyone - you can not complain that nobody read you your rights. You do not even have the right to know the charges you are facing.

If you or a loved one is involved in a criminal investigation, please don't wait. The Law Office of David J. Givot can be there to protect your rights AND still allow you to do the right thing.

Remaining Silent: It's easier Said than Done.

Bad things happen to good people. That is just a fact of life. But, more often than not, good people make their bad situation worse by trying to do the right thing. Huh? Simply put, everyone knows we, in the United States, have the right to remain silent, yet the criminal justice system can make it seem very, very difficult to exercise that right.

Most of us are raised to believe that the police are here to protect us and that we should cooperate with them whenever we can. For the most part, that is true; they are and we should. But, when your reputation and integrity and freedom are on the line, there are limits. In fact, those limits are so important to American culture that they are part of the Constitution.

Police Officers with their uniforms and guns and badges and red lights and moustaches can be very intimidating. In fact, they are trained to be intimidating. They are trained to make you feel powerless against them. When they are dealing with real bad guys, that is a good thing. When they are dealing with you, the regular person who has never had a run-in with the law, it makes them look like a*holes and it makes you feel weak. But, you are NOT weak.

Information like your name, address, and date of birth is not, by itself, incriminating and not generally protected by the Fifth Amendment. On the other hand, questions about where you have been, where you are going, and what are you doing are generally protected and up to you to answer or not. If you choose not to answer, you will not probably be breaking any laws. Of course, while your rights may be preserved, you will have one frustrated and pissed-off cop. It has been my experience that the more frustrated and pissed-off the cop, the less of a sense of humor he or she will have. But, then again, freedom isn't free.

When a law enforcement officer asks something like, "where are you going?" and you respectfully and politely answer with something like, "that's not really any of your concern," which you are entitled to do, you will immediately see the officer's face turn red and you may even see smoke emitting from the ears. Then, as they say, "it's on." Using tone and vocabulary and calculated body language, they will attempt to intimidate you into giving them what they want. They may even say things like, "...how 'bout I take you to jail and let you think about your answer there?" or "...do you WANT me to give you a ticket?" The fact is, if they CAN take you to jail or give you a ticket, they are going to; you have no obligation whatsoever to make their case against you any easier. So, don't say anything. And if they do arrest you, say politely, "I want an attorney present during any questioning." Once you say that, they are PROHIBITED from asking any questions about the case for which you have been arrested.

Even then they will use passive-aggressive techniques to get you to talk. They may tell their partner something like, "...we don't really want this guy, but he won't help himself..." or "...he wants his lawyer, so don't ask him any questions...even though he would probably get out tonight if he just helped us." Stay strong. Stay quiet. Don't let them manipulate you. Whatever they say, their ultimate goal is to build their case against YOU.

"...but if I have nothing to hide, then I have nothing to worry about." Really? Is that how so many innocent people with nothing to hide get convicted by their own statements? If you have nothing to hide, that's great. Let your lawyer explain that you have nothing to hide. Law enforcement is trained to ask leading and misleading questions, to provide you the paint with which to paint yourself into a corner. Just remain silent.

When you come home and find the detective's business card on your door with a note saying they "need your help" with an investigation, call a Criminal Defense Lawyer first. Even if you are sure it has nothing to do with you. You never know what somebody said about you behind your back. You can still help with the investigation, you can still be a good guy. Just protect yourself at the same time. Bring a lawyer with you.

Finally, remaining silent means remain silent. Your cellmates are not your friends. Your friends are not your friends. When you are in custody, you have no friends. So do not talk about your case with ANYONE! Wait for your lawyer.

The Law Office of David J. Givot handles all criminal matters in all Southern California courts. If you or a loved one has been arrested, charged, or accused of a crime or are involved in a criminal investigation, call for your FREE initial consultation (310) 699-0070.