The San Francisco Law Firm of Michael L. Davison has won the attention of media outlets and legal bloggers all across the state of California.
The California criminal defense firm recently became the talk of the legal community, setting precedent many attorneys only hope for.
In 2008, the Law Firm of Michael L. Davidson litigated a case questioning the integrity of a DUI breath test used to determine the blood alcohol content of their client, Derek Brenner. On February 2, 2011, the California Supreme Court refused to hear the DMV's appeal of the decision in Brenner v. Department of Motor Vehicles - essentially allowing the lower court's decision in favor of Brenner to stand and take precedent.
Brenner v. Department of Motor Vehicles
In December 2008, Derek Brenner was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer after the officer witnessed Brenner's alleged irregular driving. After pulling him over, the officer detected signs of alcohol.
Brenner was arrested and, as required by law, the officer administered the standard DUI breath test, a test used to measure the concentration of alcohol in a driver's blood. Brenner's test revealed a .08 blood alcohol content. Under California law, it is "unlawful for any person who has a 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle." Anyone in California caught violating this law will face DUI charges and other additional penalties - including a potential driver's license suspension.
Pursuant to the law, the California Department of Motor Vehicles moved to suspend Brenner's license.
Michael L. Davidson requested and litigated an Administrative Per Se hearing to question the license suspension of his client Derek Brenner. At the hearing, Davidson utilized his team of experts to build the evidence needed to win for his client.
When the DMV ignored the evidence, Attorney Davidson brought in James E. Dunn - a successful trial lawyer with the firm - to keep fighting for his client. Davidson and Dunn filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Superior Court in San Mateo County, California - and won.
The Department of Motor Vehicles realized that Davidson and Dunn had won a potentially wide-reaching victory for anyone accused of DUI in California. The DMV appealed to the California Court of Appeals. By a 3-0 decision, the Court of Appeals said Davidson and Dunn were right, and the DMV was wrong.
The Court of Appeals felt that the legal principles argued by Davidson and Dunn were so important that the Court published the opinion as binding precedent throughout California.
Threatened by the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the DMV appealed to the Supreme Court of California reasoning that the decision was so beneficial to drivers. They asked the Supreme Court to either reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals or to "depublish" the opinion so no other driver could use the arguments of Davison and Dunn.
On February 2, 2011, the Supreme Court of California ruled in favor of Davidson and Dunn - and every driver in California. The Court refused to overturn the decision and declared that it would remain a binding precedent throughout all of California.
The efforts of Jim Dunn and his law firm have opened the door for many drivers wishing to challenge an inaccurate BAC test.
Since hefty fines as well as license revocation are at stake, it's more important than ever that tests used to determine an individual is driving under the influence of alcohol is accurate and reliable.
