Client Letter # 4

Mr. B,

"At times our own light goes out and is rekindled by a spark from another person. Each of us has cause to think with deep gratitude of those who have lighted the flame within us." - Albert Schweitzer

The simple phrase quite masterfully sums up my recent experiences with your law firm. I cannot thank your staff enough for believing in me when just about everyone else did not, including myself.

On October 10th, 2005, I was arrested for suspicion of drunk driving. The incident itself was not too remarkable. I was cutoff resulting in a minor fender bender. I chose to pull off of the main street and then stupidly made the decision to ingest liquor. Subsequently, I was handcuffed and taken away only to sit in shackles while an overworked Public Defender with his mind on his lunch order filled out the guilty acceptance paperwork for me. Not once was I asked to recant the story. In fact, it was not until I demanded he read the report that I was even seen as having a chance to defend my actions.

....The insurmountable challenge seemed to be the criminal part of this melee. I felt great comfort knowing Jason Trumpler was choreographing the defense with R.C. representing me in court. Although the prosecution refused to concede, Mr. C. never waned and never conceded his defense that I was owed at least a reduced charge.

..[My worry and concern was exacerbated] by the unannounced departure of R right before trial. However, all was relieved when Jason Trumpler took over. Jason, thank you. He not only went above and beyond the call of duty in my case, he patiently and under no obligation spoke to Gloria [my significant other] and assuaged her doubts and fears, thus quite possibly saving my relationship.

There are no words to sufficiently describe my esteem for Jason. I went into day zero of this trial expecting a long two weeks. I walked out two hours later free of the charges that had been upgraded to include hit and run. Jason, with a refusal to concede anything demanded the only settlement he would accept would be one that exonerated me from the alcohol and hit and run. I accepted a dry reckless operation charge with gratitude.

Sincerely,

P.M.

Client Letter

Dear Jason:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for the superb representation and moral support I received during my case. Words alone do not express my gratitude to the expert handling of my DUI case by you.

As you already know, I was represented by your colleague D.D. for a prior DUI back in April of 1998. At that time, the Long Beach Police Department said that I refused to do any test. That was not true, I had told the officers at the arrest scene that I would not do a sobriety test; I was then arrested and taken to Long Beach Police Station for booking for a DUI. Please note that I never stated that I would not take one of their 3 tests. Mr. D was able to get the charges reduced to a "dry reckless." Also, he was able to get my license back. That was 8 years ago. I served 3 years probation and Mr. D was able to get my case expunged.

On October 15, 2006, I was arrested in my driveway, "about 9 feet outside my car" with a police officer pointing a gun at me in broad daylight telling me to get back into my car. I of course complied with his orders, lest I be another Rodney King and be shot. The rest you already know, and today I appeared in court for a motion that you had filed, not to mention 2 others that you had filed, and the DA decided that you would tear apart their case and dismissed mine.

I cannot express in words, that which you and your staff had done for me to get this dismissal. It was to me, an answer to prayer that helped you do this. For this, I thank you.

TJ

info@trumplerlaw.com

512-457-5200

CALL NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION!

Client Letter

Dear Mr. B:

We have never met, but I have been a client of your Newport Beach Office twice. Both times Jason E. Trumpler was my counsel. The first time my case was completely dismissed due Jason’s style, finesse, and expertise.

The second time, I was not so fortunate; I was convicted. However, the terms and conditions of my conviction were far better than I expected and far better than the DA planned on agreeing to. Jason was able to speak with the judge and reason on my behalf in a convincing manner.

The situation has caused much strain on my family. I plan on never needing your services again, I have learned my lesson. However, if someone I know is in a similar situation, I will send them straight to Jason, even if I have to drive them myself.

Thank you and your staff for the hard work done on my behalf.

Sincerely,

R.A.

Client Letter

Jason,

I finally have a moment to sit down and put into words my heartfelt appreciation for your assistance in my recent acquittal. Your composure and low key manner offered me a degree of comfort that I most desperately needed. As you know, I was facing my second DUI and a conviction would have been devastating for my personal as well as business life. I attribute your knowledge of the law, your ability to compellingly and in an understandable way convey the facts to the jury as the primary reason for my acquittal. It certainly helped that I had a .07 blood alcohol reading but as you well know; without a capable lawyer a defendant does not stand a chance in our system of justice. There is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" anymore especially in DUI cases.

I would also like to add that I appreciate the fact that at no time did you give me any false sense of hope. You were straightforward and honest in your assessment of the case though I have a sneaking suspicion you knew all along we would win. Your personal sense of reserve is to be congratulated.

Trust me when I say, "I have truly learned my lesson this time." I could have paid for a lot of cab rides for what I paid you but you were worth every dime. It's too bad you are barred from taking me up on my proposition - double or nothing - you could have doubled your fee and it still would have been worth it. I was on an emotional high for over a week. I feel like my life is starting over again. I have my yearly motorcycle trip now planned and I am leaving on July 24, 2006 for Montana and the Dakotas. I'll try to remember to send you a postcard from Sturgis, S. Dakota. I wouldn't have been able to go if it weren't for your legal acumen.

In closing, let me say again, THANK YOU Jason! One thing kind of bothers me though and that is: how much better would you have been had you not been afflicted with that nasty cold. I think you being sick gave the prosecution a slight advantage they didn't deserve. Et tu Brutus - you pulled it off anyway.

You're a stud my man! And I owe you!

Thanks again,

W. H.

Q: The police never gave me my Miranda rights, is this grounds for dismissal of the charges?

Q: The police never gave me my Miranda rights, is this grounds for dismissal of the charges?

A: No, but it may provide a legal basis for your attorney to file a motion to suppress any statement you might have made while in custody.

Most of my clients erroneously think that police have to read them Miranda rights upon arrest. This is probably because in every cop and lawyer show police always read Miranda rights before arrest. The truth is police are only required to read Miranda rights when interrogating or questioning a citizen that is in custody.

Before questioning or interrogating a citizen that is “in custody,” the police are required to advise him of his rights. If the police question a citizen that they have arrested or detained without first giving that person the Miranda warnings, the defense lawyer should file a motion to suppress any statement given by the suspect. If the suspect gave no statement, there really is no available remedy.

Austin Police Department's DWI Policy

B105 DWI Enforcement

The responsibility to remove intoxicated drivers from the roadway extends to all sworn members of the Department regardless of their actual duty status or primary assignment. This policy establishes guidelines for the detection, arrest, and processing of drivers who are suspected of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. It also provides guidelines for the implementation of the Texas Administrative License Revocation (ALR) Statute for intoxicated drivers who either refuse or fail a blood or breath test.

.01 Definitions
A. Administrative License Revocation: the administrative process to suspend the driver’s licenses of persons who either refuse or fail a breath or blood test.
B. DRE: a drug recognition evaluation or a drug recognition expert.
C. Drug Recognition Evaluation: the process the drug recognition expert uses to evaluate a suspect for the use of drugs by means of physical, clinical and psychological criteria.
D. Drug Recognition Expert (DRE): personnel trained to predict which of the seven (7) drug categories is causing the impairment of a driver that is not under the influence of alcohol.
E. Intoxicated: not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body, or having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

.02 Reason for Stop
Officers may stop a vehicle because of:
A. Observation of a traffic violation;
B. Reasonable suspicion based on information provided by credible witnesses;
C. Reasonable suspicion which can be articulated.

.03 Development of Probable Cause
Officers who stop a vehicle whose driver exhibits characteristics of intoxication may contact a DWI Enforcement Unit.
A. If a DWI Enforcement Unit is available to respond, the officer should not perform any field sobriety test on the driver.
B. If a DWI Enforcement Unit is not available to respond, the officer will conduct the field interview, administer field sobriety tests, and arrest the driver if found to be intoxicated.
1. Field interviews
a. The driver should be interviewed to determine if characteristics of intoxication are exhibited. These characteristics include but are not limited to:
(i) An odor of alcoholic beverage on the breath;
(ii) Bloodshot or glassy eyes;
(iii) Impaired speech;
(iv) Impaired movement or balance.
b. Interview questions can be but are not limited to:
(i) Originating location;
(ii) Destination;
(iii) Illness, injury or medication which might cause the same apparent characteristics as intoxication;
(iv) Alcohol consumption.
2. Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST)
a. If the officer is trained and certified in their administration, he/she will conduct the following standard field sobriety tests:
(i) Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) eye test;
(ii) Walk and Turn test;
(iii) One Leg Stand test.
b. Officers are not limited to using the SFST when:
(i) The officer has not been trained or certified in its use;
(ii) Physical limitations of the driver preclude its use;
(iii) The safety of the officer and/or driver may be compromised;
(iv) The tests are impractical for some other articulable reason.

.04 Arrest and Testing Procedures
A. If the combined observations from the stop, the field interview, and the field sobriety tests indicate that the driver is mentally or physically impaired from alcohol or drugs, officers should make an arrest and transport the driver to Central Booking. If the driver is arrested in Austin Williamson County, transport the driver to the Williamson County Jail.
B. In those units equipped with in-car camera for which the officer has been trained:
1. The camera may be positioned in such a way as to record:
a. The field interview and field sobriety tests;
b. Administration of the DWI Statutory Warning (DIC-24), and the driver’s responses;
c. The actions and statements of the arrested driver during transport.
2. Officers will turn the video tape in as evidence according to Department policy.
C. If the driver has consented to give a sample of his/her breath or blood, the following will be done:
1. Breath Test
a. Take the driver to the Intoxilyzer testing room.
(i) Officers will not take any weapons into the Intoxilyzer room or video room.
(ii) Officers will not use force to compel the driver to take any tests.
b. Read to the driver the DWI Statutory Warning (DIC-24). If the driver was operating a commercial vehicle and has a commercial license, the DIC-55 (Peace Officer Statutory Warning for Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators), DIC-54 (Peace Officer's Sworn Report), and DIC-57 (Notice of Disqualification) must be used.
c. If the driver is a Spanish-speaker only, the tape-recorded Spanish language version of the Statutory Warning will be played.
d. The breath test will be administered by a trained and certified Intoxilyzer Operator (IO).
e. If the breath test indicates the driver was at or above the legal limit he/she will be booked into jail.
(i) The arresting officer will complete the DIC 25 (Notice of Suspension/Temporary Driving Permit) or the DIC 57 (Notice of Disqualification/Temporary Permit for Commerical Vehicle Operator.)
(ii) The driver’s license of the motor vehicle operator will be seized by the arresting officer.
(iii) A copy of the Temporary Driving Permit (DIC 25 or DIC 57) will be given to the motor vehicle operator.
(iv) No motor vehicle operator will be issued a Temporary Driving Permit who does not have a current driver’s license.
(v) A copy of the Temporary Driving Permit and the seized driver license will be attached to the ALR paperwork and reviewed by the Arrest Review Detective. If the arrest was made in Austin Williamson County, see .06 for reporting and review procedures below.
(vi) The arresting officer will not confiscate the driver’s license of an individual who is operating a commercial motor vehicle and provides a specimen with an alcohol concentration between 0.001 and 0.079. A Notice of Disqualification (DIC 57) should be served.
f. If the driver exhibits symptoms of intoxication, but the breath test does not indicate a significant level of alcohol concentration consistent with the impairment displayed, the driver may be asked to consent to a drug recognition evaluation.
(i) If the driver consents, the evaluation will be administered only by a trained and certified drug recognition expert. Based on the outcome of the DRE, the driver will either be booked into jail or released.
(ii) If the driver does not consent to a DRE and was not taped by an in-car video, he/she must be video taped and a blood specimen requested. Upon completion of the video taping, the driver will be booked into jail.
2. Blood Test
a. If the driver refuses a breath test and wants a blood test, take the driver to the jail nurse’s office where supplies of blood tubes are available.
(i) In those cases where the driver has been injured in a collision and transported to a hospital, the blood test may be administered by medical personnel at that location. (Supplies of the blood tubes are kept at the security office at Brackenridge Hospital).
(ii) Blood may be forcibly taken only from persons who have been involved in a fatality/near fatality, and only at the direction of a traffic investigator.
(iii) In those cases where the suspect is arrested in Austin Williamson County, officers will transport the suspect to the Georgetown Hospital E.R. for the blood test.
b. If the driver refuses a blood test and was not taped by an in-car video, he/she must be video taped. Upon completion of the video taping, the driver will be booked into jail.
c. In cases where blood results are pending, the arresting officer should not issue a Notice of Suspension/Disqualification (DIC 25/DIC 57) or seize the driver’s license.
3. Video Taping
a. If the field interview and field sobriety tests were video taped by means of an in-car video system, and during that taping the driver refused to give a breath or blood sample, it is not necessary to video tape the driver again.
b. If the driver refuses both breath and blood tests, and they were not taped by an in-car video, the officer will video tape the driver at Central Booking or Williamson County Jail.
c. The following steps and procedures will be followed in the video room:(i) Attorneys for drivers will not be allowed in the video room.
(ii) After entering the video room, make reasonable attempts to keep the driver within the viewing area of the camera.
(iii) If the driver is not cooperative, and refuses to stand up in the video room, do not force the driver to stand.
(iv) The officer will go through all appropriate steps listed in the video room, even if the driver does not wish to perform any of the requested tasks.
(v) If the driver wishes to make a local telephone call, he/she will be allowed to make calls only from the telephone in the video room. If the driver wishes to make a long distance telephone call, he/she will be allowed to do so after being booked into jail.
(vi) The officer will read, sign, and deliver a copy of the DWI Statutory Warning (DIC-24) to the driver during the video tape session.
(vii) The driver will then be booked into jail.
D. Breath and Blood Test Refusal
1. If the motor vehicle operator does not consent to give a sample of their breath or blood, the following will be done:
a. The arresting officer will complete either the DIC 25 (Notice of Suspension/Temporary Driving Permit) or the DIC 57 (Notice of Disqualification/Temporary Driving Permit for Commerical Vehicle Operator.)
b. The driver’s license of the motor vehicle operator will be seized by the arresting officer.
c. A copy of the Temporary Driving Permit (DIC 25 or DIC 57) will be given to the motor vehicle operator.
d. No motor vehicle operator will be issued a Temporary Driving Permit who does not have a current driver’s license.
e. A copy of the Temporary Driving Permit and the seized driver’s license will be attached to the ALR paperwork and reviewed by the Arrest Review Detective. If the arrest was made in Austin Williamson County, see .06 for reporting and review procedures below.

.05 Driving Under Influence (DUI Minor-Alcohol)
A. Officers who stop a vehicle and determine that the driver:
1. Is under age 21; and
2. Has an odor of alcohol on his/her breath;
3. But displays no characteristics of intoxication,
Will either:
1. Arrest the driver for DUI Minor-Alcohol, or
2. Issue a field release citation for DUI Minor-Alcohol and turn the driver over to a responsible adult.
B. If field interview and field sobriety tests indicate that the driver is impaired, he/she may be arrested, and testing procedures as set out in section .04 of this policy apply.
1. The Family Code, Title 3, Chapter 52, Section 52.02 (d) states that a child taken into custody for DUI may submit to the taking of a breath specimen without the concurrence of an attorney, but only if the request made of the child to give the specimen and the child’s response to that request is video taped. In accordance with this statute officers will:
a. Videotape the administration of the DIC-24 statutory warning to all juveniles arrested for DUI prior to administering the intoxilyzer test or obtaining a blood sample.
b. The videotape will be maintained in accordance with departmental evidence handling policy.
2. The driver’s license will be seized if the Breathalyzer establishes any detectable amount of alcohol. A Temporary Driving Permit will be issued if the guidelines established in section .04 are met.

.06 Filing and Reporting Procedures
A. Complete and turn in all incident reports/supplements and other associated documentation.
1. Officers making an arrest for DWI will ensure that they have completed:
a. Incident report with correct title;
b. Completed ALR paperwork;
c. Intoxilizer result slip;
d. Collision field sheet (if applicable);
e. Evidence tag for blood sample (if taken);
f. Evidence tag for video tape (in-car or video room);
g. Probable cause affidavit;
h. Municipal Court cover sheet. (Williamson County Court cover sheet if applicable)
2. Officers stopping a driver who is subsequently arrested by a DWI Enforcement Unit need to complete:
a. Supplement to the incident report;
b. Collision field sheet (if applicable).
B. Officers making an arrest for DWI will turn over the appropriate paperwork to the Direct File Unit for review and approval. If arrested and booked into the Williamson County Jail, a copy of the ALR paperwork, the intoxilizer results slip, affidavit and report will be turned into the booking officer. If the suspect was involved in a collision and a ST-3 collision sheet was completed, a copy will also be attached. All original ALR paperwork and seized driver’s license will be stapled together and forwarded to the Traffic Office through inter-office mail. Appropriate arrest review and approval procedures addressed in Document B113 of the General Orders will be followed.
C. Video tapes and blood tubes will be handled in accordance with Department policy regarding the handling of evidence.
1. Videotapes will be turned in to the evidence room. If arrested in Austin Williamson County, the videotape will be turned into the video drop box at the Williamson County Jail.
2. Blood tubes will be placed in the appropriate drop box at Police Headquarters for processing by the APD Crime Lab.

If the police question me, should I answer them?

If the police question me, should I answer them?

Q: If the police question me, should I answer them?
A: Probably not.
An individual being questioned by the police may feel pressure to cooperate with them. The police often encourage a suspect to unburden himself by holding out the possibility that by cooperating, the suspect can untangle himself from the potential criminal charges. This is a common technique used by the police. The police have no intention of helping suspects. Often times, the police – lacking evidence with which to secure a conviction, can only obtain a conviction by compelling a suspect to incriminate himself. Many individuals, desperate to improve their situation, talk to the police, thereby drastically reducing their chances of an acquittal at trial. The police are not interrogating you in an effort to improve your position, they are trying to solve the crime – and at your expense. Resist the temptation to speak with the police without first having contacted a criminal defense attorney. Instead, inform the police of the following:

that you are exercising your right to remain silent;
that you are exercising your right to speak with an attorney before submitting to questioning;
that you want to exercise your right to make a telephone call. (The police will not normally limit you to only one telephone call).

If the police continue to question you, say nothing. I have had clients inform me that when they insisted that they wanted to speak with a lawyer before further questioning, the police pressed the client to waive that right. Some detectives have told suspects that a lawyer would only make matters worse and that they, the detectives, were the only ones empowered to help the suspect. Detectives have often lied to suspects about the evidence that they have gathered. In an effort to brake a suspect's silence, detectives have been known to tell him that they have recovered his fingerprint from the crime scene. These tactics are not uncommon. The fact that you refused to speak with the police cannot be used against you at trial. Do not panic and do not allow the police to bait you into breaking your silence.