Van Tran should drop his Congressional Run. And maybe resign.

Interfering with field sobriety test? (0.00 / 0)

It is unlawful for an officer to require someone to participate in a field sobriety test.  (If the defendant refuses, that refusal cannot be used in court.)  Field sobriety tests as administered in California have zero scientific value.  Officers perform tests that are not valid.  Officers are generally not trained to perform the three tests that are of some validity.

An attorney has every right to advise his client to cease co-operating with a field sobriety test.  The officer who interfered and told the attorney to stand away committed a misdemeanor.  (It's in the Penal Code.)

Mind you, I am no fan of Republicans in Westminster, but let's make sure he did something wrong.  The fact that a cop is arrogant and places himself above the law is no reason to criticize the attorney.

Find out who the cop is and see if he is going to be prosecuted.

---

by: Doll @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 14:10:17 PM UTC

What it shows is (0.00 / 0)

Takeaway, Van Tran isn't much of a lawyer and would probably be a worse congressmen. He mumbles and mentions that Quach is his client, but he doesn't assert or offer any counsel to Quac. He should of just said that he's advising his client to refuse the field test. The officer most likely still would have arrested Quach at 3x the legal limit and they could of hashed it out at the police station.  

---

by: EGProgressive @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 17:53:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

3x legal limit? (0.00 / 0)

Who says it's three times the legal limit?  What kind of test was performed?  Who performed the test?  If breath, was the machine working properly?

---

by: Doll @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 18:31:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh really? (0.00 / 0)

California's courts respectfully disagree with your claim as to what the law requires. For example, the Court of Appeal held in Whalen v. Municipal Court of Alhambra Judicial Dist., (274 Cal. App. 2d 809, 813) that:

The courts of this state have repeatedly held that a defendant is not entitled to consult with an attorney prior to determining whether he should submit to a chemical test of his blood, breath or urine as required under section 13353 of the Vehicle Code. . . . We hold that the same ruling is applicable with respect to field sobriety tests designed to elicit "physical" and not "testimonial" evidence.

You're right that field sobriety tests are of very limited value as evidence at trial. But that's exactly why a person does not have a right to consult with an attorney before submitting to one.

I'd be clear about the law before advocating that the cop be prosecuted for not allowing Van Tran to consult with his friend while he was undergoing a field sobriety test.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 17:57:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's also not clear to me (0.00 / 0)

that you can become someone's lawyer by just saying "I'm their lawyer".

---

by: jsw @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 18:02:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right to consult an attorney (0.00 / 0)

You are correct that one cannot stop the process in order to consult an attorney before submitting to a blood or breath test.  Whalen is what, 30 years old?

However, when the lawyer is there, one is permitted to consult the lawyer.  In addition, I would have counselled him, as another writer suggested, not to continue with the field sobriety tests.  However, I would counsel him to ask for a blood test.  (Blood tests are actually easier to challenge in court than the pseudo-science of breath tests.)

While the quote from Whalen is correct, it is not applicable when the lawyer is actually there and the advice from the lawyer does not interfere with the officer getting a blood or breath test.

---

by: Doll @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 18:30:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not convincing (0.00 / 0)

You said:

when the lawyer is there, one is permitted to consult the lawyer.

and

While the quote from Whalen is correct, it is not applicable when the lawyer is actually there and the advice from the lawyer does not interfere with the officer getting a blood or breath test.

On what legal authority do you base your claim and your narrow reading of Whalen?

Whalen is just one example of the many cases that have held that a person has no right to counsel before or during a field sobriety test. Another example is People v. Walker (266 Cal. App. 2d 562) where the Court held:

Neither the denial of the opportunity for advice of counsel before stating whether one will submit to a [field sobriety] test and before deciding which test to take, nor the denial of the opportunity to have counsel present while the test is administered, is the denial of any constitutional right.

You're arguing that the cop should be prosecuted for interfering with Tran's friend's right to have counsel present during the field sobriety test. But as far as I can tell, no such right exists. If you're aware of some law I'm missing, please point it out.  At the very least, explain the legal basis for your claim that the cop committed a misdemeanor (other than to say "It's in the Penal Code.")

(Oh, and the fact that Whaelen case is 30 years old--and has never been reversed, questioned, or even distinguished--doesn't help your argument.)

---

by: Be_Devine @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 19:17:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]