Source: https://duilawyerorangecounty.com/appellate-court-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:04:52+00:00

Document:
The Government’s “War” against Drunk Driving has also been a War against our Constitutional rights. Under the mantra of the ends justify the means, Judges have systematically eroded the 4th Amendment’s Right of Privacy to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and the 6th Amendment’s right to confront and cross examine and right to an attorney. The DUI Defense Attorney is in the forefront of these battles and our /Firm has had the honor and privilege to be involved in numerous battles to maintain the rights guaranteed by our California and United States Constitutions.
Nelson v. City of Irvine (United States Supreme Court) Was his class action suit against the entire Irvine Police Department for failing to give DUI arrestees a choice between blood/breath and urine tests. The Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in a case of first impression that an arrestee has a constitutional right to choose a breath test and that the police cannot compel a blood test from a driver who wants a breath test. That ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and has greater meaning today since the Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely which reaffirmed the need for a search warrant in the absence of genuine consent to a blood test by a DUI arrestee.
Lidster v Illinois (United States Supreme Court) Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of the National Assn of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National College for DUI Defense challenging police use of roadblocks.
Treadway v. California (California Supreme Court/United States Supreme Court) involved a challenge to a California statute which retroactively extended the look back period to allege prior convictions as sentence enhancements from 7 years to 10 years.
Stogner v. California (United States Supreme Court) was a successful Constitutional challenge to a California statute which revived charges that were time barred the Statute of Limitations in violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Lake v. Reed (Cal. Supreme Court) which placed limitations on the use of citizen hearsay statements at DMV license suspension hearings.
People v. Triggs (California Supreme Court) established that clandestine surveillance of public restrooms was a violation of the 4th amendment right to privacy.
Robertson v. Zolin which established new relaxed standards for challenging alcohol testing procedures in drunk driving cases at Administrative Hearings before the DMV.
Trautman v. DMV which was a successful challenge to the Orange County Sheriff’s Crime Lab for using unapproved breath testing machines which lead the DMV to announce that they would cancel 4700 DUI suspensions.
Bite v. Gourley where he challenged the Orange County Sherriff’s Crime Lab’s failure to use blood testing methods that were approved by the California State Department of Health pursuant to Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations resulting in set asides of DMV suspensions for his clients for 6 years.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.