Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

Published on: May 7, 2014

$100,000 Bail Set for Man Who Rammed Cars at Southern California DUI Checkpoint

Authorities arrested 34-year-old Eric Paul Ivanoff for driving under the influence in Southern California, after he caused an awful accident last Friday evening in Orange County.

Police in the community of Cypress had set up a checkpoint, which had been operating for just 30 minutes, when Ivanoff’s vehicle smashed into several cars waiting in line. The force of the collision injured three people badly enough that they had to be hospitalized. (All were listed in stable condition, as of this posting).

But then Ivanoff made the situation worse – much worse – by hopping on his vehicle and fleeing the scene. Authorities found him shortly after and arrested him. Allegedly, he resisted arrest and even injured one of the officers who pursued him. Cypress Police reported that “three victims were transported to a local hospital, two of whom were transported to a trauma center with moderate injuries.”

After booking Ivanoff on charges of hit and run, DUI, resisting arrest, and resisting arrest with violence, authorities set his bail at $100,000.

Obviously, the whole story is scary and sad for many reasons. The situation illustrates, dramatically, how DUI defendants can make their situation much, much worse, even after getting caught or stopped by the police.

As Ivanoff approached the checkpoint, he might have been self-conscious. Perhaps he had consumed several drinks before getting behind the wheel. So he might have anticipated that police would have arrested him. Getting busted at a checkpoint is obviously no fun, and a misdemeanor DUI charge can lead to several days in jail, the loss of your California driver’s license, mandatory alcohol school, tough probation terms, spikes on your car insurance rates, and other indirect problems.

However, since he hit and hurt other people, he likely will now be charged per California Vehicle Code Section 23153 (the injury DUI law). This means that he could face over a year behind bars for each person he hurt while driving DUI.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, he (allegedly) got out of his car, fled the scene, and then attacked an officer. Each one of those mistakes, on its own, could complicate his defense tremendously. Hit and run is a serious crime, as is resisting arrest, as is resisting arrest and then hitting an officer.

Fortunately, no one died in the accident, but it holds important object lessons.

If you or someone you love faces complex Los Angeles DUI charges, call the effective and thorough legal team here at the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. for a confidential case consultation.
Continue reading

Published on: May 5, 2014

Did Your Los Angeles DUI Accident Give Someone Whiplash?

by Michael Kraut

According to the Los Angeles DUI injury section of the California Vehicle Code — 23153 — if you injured someone while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, prosecutors can subject you to a fearsome array of punishments, such as:

•   Felony jail time (over a year behind bars);
•   Lots of alcohol school;
•   Strict probation;
•   Fines and fees;
•   Loss of CA driver’s license for over a year;
•   Other harsh penalties;

Obviously, DUI injury cases are fraught because the stakes of any legal action – for both sides – are so high. If you’re a victim, you may face major medical bills that could add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars as well as lost work time, problems with your relationships, and so forth. As a defendant, you likewise face the unpleasant possibility of having to pay in perpetuity for the victim’s medical care and damages. The legal battle can draw in multiple stakeholders, including various insurance companies, and get complicated as well as emotional.

Given the high stakes and potential drama, you might want to learn what injuries are truly compensable. One of the most interesting types of injuries is whiplash. It’s “interesting” because personal injury claims often sue (and win) for big judgments on whiplash claims.

Whiplash is understood as a painful condition that can lead to lots of agony (not to mention therapeutic bills) and persist for years to decades. But there has always been some controversy over the diagnosis of whiplash. Some radical critics contend that whiplash is effectively a psychosomatic disorder – that’s a fancy way of saying “it’s all in your head.” Now, most whiplash sufferers will tell you that such pain is obviously not “in my head.” But this oversimplification of the critics’ position actually mischaracterizes what they’re saying.

The whiplash “counter argument” boils down to this: the structural damage, if any, caused by so-called whiplash-inducing car accidents is minor, and it cannot account for the range or duration of symptoms that victims report.

As evidence, critics will often point to a very curious (and controversial) series of studies, most famously a study out of Norway that analyzed the so-called Norwegian whiplash epidemic from a few decades ago. Researchers noticed an epidemic numbers of whiplash claims erupted shortly after insurance companies begin to accept whiplash claims. They wondered if the labeling of the diagnosis, itself, was fanning the epidemic somehow.

To try to figure this out, they took a look at whiplash-inducing car accident cases in Lithuania… and found some pretty shocking results. In Lithuania at that time, no one had really heard of whiplash, so the diagnosis was unknown. Amazingly, researchers found that the Lithuanians who got hurt in car accidents did not report the whiplash symptoms – and this remained true even when the researchers adjusted for potential confounders. Without getting into the science, the Norway Lithuania study (along with many others) seems to at least suggest that some cases of whiplash may indeed be created and/or perpetuated by non-structural factors.

So what does this mean for your Los Angeles DUI injury defense?

Not necessarily much!

But the situation illustrates how complex and eccentric DUI defenses can sometimes get. To that end, you want a Los Angeles DUI law firm that has a rich body of experience and excellent in-house resources to help you build a sound case. Look to attorney Michael Kraut and his team at the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. for help with your defense. As an ex-prosecutor and deputy district attorney, Mr. Kraut has the relationships, wherewithal, and experience to assist you.
Continue reading

Published on: April 29, 2014

Parents of Young Woman Killed by DUI Driver Sue Congresswoman and the Federal Government

by Michael Kraut

Last December 6th, 27-year-old Mallory Dies was killed in a Santa Barbara crash, and authorities arrested driver Raymond Morua in connection with the fatal Southern California DUI.

Morua had been working as an aid for Congresswomen Lois Capps, when he hit Dies after leaving a holiday party in Downtown Santa Barbara. Now, Dies’s parents, Matt and Raeona Dies, have filed a wrongful death suit against Morua… and named Congresswoman Capps and the Federal Government as defendants.

The plaintiffs claim that Representative Capps hired Morua, even though he had two DUI convictions as well as convictions for embezzlement and hit and run under his belt. Capps also failed to monitor his behavior or his driving. The lawsuit claims that Morua had been working for Capps on the night in question — as the plaintiff’s attorney put it “Mr. Morua has said under oath, under penalty of perjury, that he was on the job… [and this makes] Lois Capps … responsible.” Congresswoman Capps claims that Morua had NOT been working for on the night in question, and she issued statements of empathy: “My heart goes out to the family of the victim… I lost a daughter way before her time, and it’s a heartache.”

The 27-year-old had been on life support for several days before she passed away from her injuries. Her family claims that they incurred medical bills to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they want compensation. Morua could face two decades behind bars on his May 28 sentencing.

We’ve been talking a lot recently about Los Angeles DUI manslaughter laws — such as Penal Code 191.5 (a), which defines gross vehicular manslaughter while DUI. But even if you don’t kill someone, you can face substantial jail time (over a year), just for injuring someone while driving DUI. According to California Vehicle Code Section 23153 (a) and (b), your penalties will depend on how many people got hurt and the nature of those injuries. If a person got seriously hurt, prosecutor can ask for a “great bodily injury” charge, which is an enhancement, and it can lead to three additional years of jail time. For help coming up with an appropriate defense against your Los Angeles DUI charges, call attorney Michael Kraut and the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. team immediately to schedule your free consultation with us.
Continue reading

Published on: April 23, 2014

24/7 Sobriety Programs or Interlock Ignition Devices: Which Work Better for Deterring Los Angeles DUI Recidivism?

by Michael Kraut

A profound debate is going on in the Los Angeles DUI defense community (and the DUI community at large): What techniques and strategies work best for preventing so-called “recidivist” behavior?

Even though the justice system can be quite punitive with respect to DUI driving, all stakeholders in the system want the same things – safer roads, fewer people killed, and drivers who strive to be safe and mindful.

Of course, authorities have tried various strategies to achieve those ends.

One common technique used to stop recidivist behavior is the so-called Interlock Ignition Device (IID). Here in Los Angeles – and other spots around the country – even first time offenders can be ordered to install IID devices in their vehicles. Basically, you cannot start your car unless you blow into a permanent breathalyzer device on your vehicle. If any alcohol taints your breath, your car won’t start.

Offenders must pay to install and maintain these devices, and IID programs bring in millions of dollars a year to various state coffers. However, there is a new type of anti-recidivism strategy — championed by the National Sheriffs Association and other groups — called “24/7 Sobriety.”

South Dakota and two other states have been using this program in place of IIDs to stomp out recidivism, and some evidence suggests that it may be quite effective. Basically, an offender must take breath tests twice a day, every day, for a duration of time. Apparently, drivers who constantly monitor their sobriety tend to be far more mindful and less likely to hop behind the wheel while over the limit.

Mike Leidholt, a South Dakota sheriff who helped to implement the first statewide 24/7 Sobriety Program, has spoken highly of the initiative “Of all the wonderful programs that sheriffs are initiating, I have not seen one that as successful in reducing recidivism, managing corrections problems, and reducing alcohol-related crashes as the 24/7 Sobriety Program.”

Meanwhile, however, the program has met stiff resistance from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Jan Withers, MADD’s National Director, recently wrote an editorial protesting the National Sheriffs’ Association’s push for 24/7 sobriety in Florida, writing: “MADD believes that amendments allowing for twice a day testing or 24/7 sobriety programs are okay, but these programs should never replace the use of ignition interlock for a convicted drunk driver.”

While groups like MADD and the National Sheriffs’ Association hash out how to stop recidivism, it’s well worth taking time to consider the legal consequences of recidivism in the Golden State. Every time you get convicted for a new DUI (within 10 years), your punishments ratchet up substantially. You might face:

•   Additional jail time;
•   Additional alcohol school;
•   Stricter probation terms;
•   A longer license suspension.
•   The elevation of a misdemeanor to a felony.

For help coming to terms with your Los Angeles DUI charges, call Michael Kraut of the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. immediately to set up a consultation with him and his team. Mr. Kraut is a former city prosecutor who bring years of successful work, great relationships, and a Harvard Law School education to help his clients succeed.
Continue reading

Published on: April 21, 2014

Horrendous News – 16-Year-Old Girl Dies After DUI Driver Hits Her Apartment

by Michael Kraut

This awful news qualifies as one of most disturbing Los Angeles DUI stories of the year: a 16-year-old girl died over the weekend, after a suspected DUI driver smashed into her Palmdale apartment complex.

Police found a mini-van jammed inside a building on 10th Street and Avenue R East at around 4 in the morning. Per Sheriff’s Lieutenant Ken Wright (from an interview he did for KNX 1070), “The vehicle was embedded into the building and went into the bedroom of a 16-year-old girl who has passed away as a result of injures from the accident.”

16-year-old Giselle Mendoza had attended Palmdale High School. Her father, Alberto Mendoza, was inconsolable – calling himself “destroyed.” Meanwhile, 20-year-old Roberto Rodriguez – also of Palmdale – has been arrested on suspicion DUI.

Per Lieutenant Wright “[Roberto] has been taken to the hospital to be treated for his injuries and will be booked for vehicular manslaughter … preliminary investigation indicates he was under the influence of alcohol.”

A local eyewitness, James Fisher King, told reporters: “I saw a car coming down 10th, east, about 80-85 miles per hour, and didn’t stop or hesitate. Just right into the building. Boom.” Another girl — just 14-years-old — almost also perished in the accident. Rodriguez’s car plowed through her bedroom as well. But she had been sleeping on the couch that night, fortuitously. Rodriguez made his $100,000 bail, which outraged the victim’s father, who said “You have a lot of money… and you spend money, and come out. And forget it. Somebody died… it’s not fair.”

The powerful emotions that follow a DUI accident in which someone dies can lead to unbelievable amounts of grief, confusion, and frustration on both sides of the equation. It’s easy for people to jump to conclusions about who caused the accident and why and what should be done. However, it’s critical to conduct a sober assessment of the facts.

Prosecutors can choose from an array of charges in DUI accidents that lead to injury or death. A typical non-injury DUI might be charged per California Vehicle Code Section 23152. An injury DUI, on the other hand, might be charged per CVC 23153. The difference between these codes is not just one number – it’s the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.

If someone dies in an accident in which DUI is suspected, prosecutors can seek vehicular manslaughter charges. There are different grades of this charge, as well. “Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated” is defined by California Penal Code Section 191.5 (a). Prosecutors face a very stiff burden of proof in such cases, but the punishments can be comparably severe. Depending on what happened, the offender can face anywhere from probation to 10 years behind bars in a California prison for every person who died in the crash.

To construct an appropriate defense to your charges, contact a Los Angeles DUI criminal defense attorney at the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. today to schedule a free consultation with a former prosecutor and Harvard Law School educated attorney.
Continue reading

Published on: April 14, 2014

Tragedy Strikes Ventura County as Assistant Principal Killed by Alleged DUI Driver

by Michael Kraut

Tragedy struck on South Victoria Avenue over the weekend, as 38-year-old assistant principal, Christopher Prewitt, lost his life after being struck by a car driven, allegedly, by a DUI driver.

Authorities arrested 23-year-old Shante Chappell of Oxnard for Los Angeles drug DUI and vehicular manslaughter in connection with the crime. Chappell made a $50,000 bond, and he faces his first day in court on Friday.

Prewitt, who had a major hearing disability, competed for the U.S team in the World Games for the Deaf as a water polo player. He coached and taught at the DeAnza Academy of Technology and Arts. The principal of that school, Hector Guerrero, reflected on Prewitt’s life and legacy, saying that he impacted “thousands of lives” and that “positivity was what Chris Prewitt was, and the kids absolutely loved that about him.”

This is obviously a deeply tragic loss – not just for Prewitt’s family, but also for the community and the school – and it speaks to how DUI manslaughter cases can ripple across many lives and the entire community.

Given the profound nature of these charges, prosecutors can seek substantial penalties in such cases. Depending on the nature of the crash and death, a defendant can face stringent charges per California Penal Code Section 191.5(a) – “gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.” This charge is complex, and prosecutors must work diligently to prove, among other things, that the defendant acted in a “grossly negligent” fashion. Technically speaking, that’s a type of negligence that goes beyond ordinary carelessness and bad judgment or lack of attention.

Consider, for reference, the Olivia Culbreath case. In case you missed the headlines, a young woman, while allegedly DUI, killed 6 people after driving 100 miles per hour the wrong way on the 60 freeway. Culbreath’s alleged actions could easily be considered grossly negligent, because everyone knows that driving 100 miles per hour the wrong way on the freeway can create a high risk of bodily injury or death. Any reasonable person would tell you that.

Without more facts about the Prewitt case, it is hard to know what prosecutors will ultimately ask for in this case.

If you or someone you love is contending with a Los Angeles DUI charge, former prosecutor and Harvard Law School educated attorney, Michael Kraut, and his team at the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. would be happy to provide a free and confidential consultation about your options.
Continue reading

Published on: April 11, 2014

To Minimize Chances of Los Angeles DUI Arrest, Avoid Wearing a Shirt That Reads “Drunk As Sh**,” Like Ross McMakin Did

by Michael Kraut

This Los Angeles DUI blog, like many other media outlets, is fascinated by ironic DUI arrests.

Most people don’t actually know what the word “ironic” means (looking at you, Alanis!), but it defines a situation with a paradoxical discrepancy. For instance, if you are listening to somber, dreary music while an adorable, colorful children’s TV show plays on the screen, THAT is ironic.

Also ironic: trying to plead innocence, after the police pull you over for driving under the influence while you’re wearing a T-shirt with the words “Drunk As Sh**” in enormous bold letters.

Yet that’s exactly what happened to 21-year-old Ross McMakin of Oregon over the weekend.

On Sunday morning, authorities say that McMakin drove his Ford Ranger pickup truck onto the curb and smashed into a parked car. His ex-girlfriend then tried to grab the keys, but he allegedly choked her and drove off by himself. Police were notified at around 3:30 in the morning, and they stopped him.

Per the Corvallis Gazette-Times, McMakin’s BAC level was over twice the legal limit (in Southern California, as in Oregon, that number is 0.08% BAC). He allegedly told police that his “girlfriend didn’t know how to drive stick shift,” so that was why he was driving. He faces a rouge’s gallery of intense charges, including harassment, strangulation, reckless endangerment, and DUI driving.

He also faces instantly infamy, thanks to his T-shirt — that he wore in his mug shot — which read “Drunk As Sh**.”

McMakin obviously is hoping his ironic arrest will fade and be forgotten. Unfortunately, the internet has a memory like an elephant – if you are arrested for DUI wearing an ironic T-shirt – that picture will unfortunately likely live forever in infamy, since it has a “viral element” to it.

On the other hand, someone like McMakin can seek to fight some or all of his charges. One option – which may or may not be available for the 21-year-old – is to seek something called expungement. Basically, if you plead no contest to a DUI (or guilty), in some cases, the court can later allow you to dismiss your case and remove it from the record. Obviously, this won’t help with the public humiliation factor, but it can help you when it comes to applying for a job or insurance. Plus, if you ever get arrested again for a crime like DUI (or something else), the expungement will prevent the court from “seeing” what you did in the past.

For help managing the aftermath of your arrest, call a Los Angeles DUI criminal defense attorney with the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. immediately for a free and confidential evaluation of your case.
Continue reading

Published on: April 9, 2014

Checkpoints in Malibu Lead to 20 Arrests, as LAPD Sets Up Saturation Patrols Elsewhere

by Michael Kraut

It’s been a busy week for the LAPD, at least as far as Los Angeles DUI arrests are concerned.

According to the LA Weekly News, police set up multiple saturation patrols and checkpoints throughout the Southland last weekend. On Saturday night (from 7 PM to 1 AM), the LAPD patrolled South LA, near the 77th Street Division area, as well as Huntington Drive near Poplar Boulevard in El Sereno. The police also set up another saturation patrol on Sunday in the West Valley Division area.

Law enforcement officials argue that these patrols prevent deaths and injuries on the road. Per the LAPD: “research shows that traffic collisions involving an impaired driver can be reduced by up to 20% when well publicized DUI checkpoints and proactive DUI patrols are conducted routinely.” While these patrols can, indeed, make the roads safer, they can often capture innocent people in the dragnet, forcing those drivers to endure license suspension, jail time, humiliation, spikes in their insurance rates, and other frustrating consequences.

The authorities set up another checkpoint on PCH over the weekend, netting 20 DUI arrests after checking out 150 drivers. That LAPD checkpoint, which ran from 7 PM to 3 AM, per a Sheriff’s Country press release: “was one of many that have been and will be conducted throughout the year in Malibu.” Authorities arrested 10 people for driving without a license, impounded three vehicles, and even arrested someone for refusing to comply with checkpoint instructions.

History of DUI Checkpoints in L.A. and Beyond

Believe it or not, checkpoints have only been considered Constitutional for a few decades. A landmark case decided by the Supreme Court in the late 1980s considered whether DUI checkpoints violated Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that such checkpoints were Constitutional, but the court put many constraints on them. For instance, police cannot hold vehicles indefinitely or use excessive force. Authorities are also limited in terms of when and how they can establish and run checkpoints.

Checkpoint Defenses

Depending on when and how you got arrested, you may be able to challenge the validity of the checkpoint or the arrest. For instance:

•   Perhaps police incompetence or negligence occurred;
•   Maybe the blood test that showed that you were above the legal limit was badly calibrated or improperly administered or recorded;
•   Perhaps the police failed to read you your rights, engaged in abusive or overly aggressive behavior, or searched your vehicle without probable cause.

For help, call experienced Los Angeles DUI defense attorney, Michael Kraut, and his team today for an even, clearheaded consultation about your defense options.
Continue reading

Published on: April 7, 2014

Should Certain Los Angeles DUI Offenders Be Punished Much More Harshly Than Others?

by Michael Kraut

Are all Los Angeles DUI offenders equal?

Obviously, the simple answer is no. For instance, let’s say you just got pulled over at a checkpoint. A police officer gave you both breathalyzer and field sobriety tests. You failed both. Now, you face a misdemeanor charge of violating California Vehicle Code Section 23152.

Alternatively, let’s say you hurt somebody while committing the same crime. Suddenly, you face charges under a different law – felony charges! – per California Vehicle Code Section 23153. There are other ways the law slices and dices DUI offenders. The law stipulates different punishments, depending:

•   If you were under age when you got behind the wheel while DUI;
•   If you’re a repeat offender (the law suggests more intense punishments for second and third time recidivists);
•   If you committed additional crimes while DUI, such as hit and run, battery against a police officer, etcetera;
•   If you were egregiously over the legal limit.

But are these classifications “fine grained” enough? More to the point: might there be certain classes of offenders who should be punished far more harshly than “standard” Los Angeles DUI offenders?

For instance – and we’ve all seen drivers like this – but let’s say you see a 19-year-old kid in a hot rod car speeding while likely DUI on the 405. He cuts across 4 lanes of traffic and nearly causes four wrecks before police pull him over. He behaves extremely aggressively/recklessly/obnoxiously. In an ideal world, perhaps the 19-year-old should lose his license for ten years and be forced to write handwritten apologies to everyone he almost killed.

Obviously, that wouldn’t/shouldn’t happen. But that’s the gut reaction many of us have, when we see drivers behaving super obnoxiously: “that guy should have his license taken away forever and should be thrown in jail, just for being a jerk.”

We’ve all had those thoughts – even people who defend DUI drivers for a living!

The question is: is there scientific merit to such thinking? Are superb obnoxious drivers, for instance, more likely to get into injury crashes? If we could catalogue drivers in a more fine grained way, could we come up with more appropriate punishments for certain crimes? Even if we COULD slice and dice the galaxy of offenders like that, would we really want to? Practically speaking, this strategy would open up a whole raft of moral and legal questions.

The problem is inherently complicated and messy – and that’s the point of this thought exercise. Dealing with DUI is an inherently messy exercise. The law cannot foresee every situation, nor spell out every contingency plan. And that’s why it’s so important for a defendant to work with a seasoned Los Angeles DUI lawyer. You need to stay on track and avoid getting confused or misled.

If you haven’t already retained an attorney, call Michael Kraut of the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. today to explore your defense options. Mr. Kraut is a seasoned former prosecutor; he can help you come to terms with your charges and get excellent results.
Continue reading

Published on: April 4, 2014

Superman Busted for DUI – Really!

by Michael Kraut

If you were busted for driving under the influence in Los Angeles, you may be feeling pretty ashamed and depressed. Don’t beat yourself up too much, though: even Superman occasionally gets a DUI.

Seriously.

Last week, 33-year-old Christopher Reeves of Utah (no relation to the actor Christopher Reeves who played the Man of Steel) was busted for drug DUI per the David Country Sheriff’s Office. In his mug shot, Reeves wore a Superman shirt.

Authorities charged him with possessing methamphetamines and DUI and set his bail at $15,000.00. A local deputy said he saw the 33-year-old erratically driving early on Tuesday morning, “performing weaving maneuvers, drawing the attention of deputies.” When police searched his car, they allegedly found massive amounts of methamphetamines, as well as drug paraphernalia and Spice – a synthetic kind of marijuana.

The local Sheriff’s Office wryly commented “I hope he will live not to regret the choice of T-shirt on this day, but rather his actions.” Reportedly, the paraphernalia and the amount of drugs found in his car was “plenty to distribute around” – and indicated that Reeves could face distribution and intent to sell charges, which would make his criminal situation far more dire and complicated.

His arrest raises an important issue that needs to be discussed – the distinction between over-the-counter meds and illegal narcotics, such as meth, LSD, cocaine, etc. You might think the law would classify these drugs differently, from a DUI standpoint. If you’re high on over-the-counter vicodin or Benadryl while behind the wheel, that doesn’t seem “as bad” as being high from pot or cocaine.

However, California Vehicle Code Section 23152 (a) doesn’t really care about what got you high — it just cares if you ARE high. And if you are, it’s a criminal offense: the statute does not distinguish between street drugs and legally prescribed medicines. The statute only cares about the level of impairment. It concerns itself with the end result: did you take a substance (alcohol, drugs, other) that made you a dangerous driver?

So how can you fight back against such charges?

Law enforcement does not have the equivalent of a breathalyzer to test for drugs like prescription meds or marijuana. Prosecutors rely on the expertise of Drug Recognition Experts (DRE), who use field tests and other methods to identify potentially drug impaired drivers. Authorities also use blood and urine tests.

If you or someone you love needs to find a Los Angeles DUI defense attorney, call Michael Kraut of the Kraut Law Group Criminal & DUI Lawyers, Inc. today. Mr. Kraut is a former Deputy District Attorney (ex-prosecutor), and he has tremendous experience defending complex DUI cases. He can help you create a smart and astute defense to your charges.
Continue reading