![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Long-Beach-Courthouse-765x510.webp.webp\")
\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
LONG BEACH, Calif. \u2014 A DUI case heard Thursday at the Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse centered on allegations that the Long Beach Police Department failed to conduct a proper investigation, with defense counsel arguing that critical steps were overlooked.<\/p>\n
On April 29, 2025, the accused was allegedly seen by witnesses pulling into a parking lot driveway where a taco stand was set up. Two employees of the taco stand, both witnesses in the case, claim they saw him pull into the parking lot, heard a brief acceleration, saw him come to a stop, and fall asleep behind the wheel.<\/p>\n
The accused was charged on two counts: driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or above.<\/p>\n
Deputy Public Defense Attorney Ballinger, however, highlighted the lack of evidence collected by police at the scene. The defense counsel outlined the standard three-step DUI investigation procedure followed upon arrival at a scene. Phase one, \u201cvehicle in motion,\u201d calls for the officer to observe the vehicle in motion to detect signs of impairment. Phase two, \u201cpersonal contact,\u201d involves interviewing and assessing the driver. The final phase, \u201cpre-arrest screening,\u201d is where field sobriety tests are administered to establish probable cause for arrest.<\/p>\n
According to the defense counsel, police did not witness the vehicle in motion, in reference to phase one. Officers at the scene also failed to follow standard investigation procedures by not properly interviewing the accused through questions such as, \u201cWhen did you start drinking?\u201d or \u201cWhen did you stop drinking?\u201d The defense argued that these interview and assessment questions could have determined what events had actually occurred that night. Without them, Ballinger claimed, police were merely assuming.<\/p>\n
Officers then failed to administer the proper field sobriety tests.<\/p>\n
Police officers did not complete a search of the vehicle, noting only that there was an unidentifiable liquid in an unlabeled glass bottle in the car. When Ballinger questioned an officer about the liquid, asking why he had not smelled the bottle, the officer replied that he \u201cthought it could kill him.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ballinger also pointed out two surveillance cameras in the parking lot, footage from which was not collected by police.<\/p>\n
The Long Beach police \u201cdidn\u2019t preserve any of that evidence,\u201d said the defense counsel. The \u201clack of evidence collected by the police is reasonable doubt.\u201d<\/p>\n
The final failure identified by the defense was the officers\u2019 failure to complete a DUI investigation form.<\/p>\n
As stated and emphasized by Ballinger, \u201cassumptions lead to wrongful convictions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media \u2013 X<\/a>, Instagram <\/a>and Facebook<\/a>.\u00a0 Subscribe <\/a>the Vanguard News letters.\u00a0 To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org\/donate<\/a> or give directly through ActBlue<\/a>.\u00a0 Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.<\/p>\n Categories: Breaking News<\/a> Court Watch<\/a> Southern California Court Watch<\/a> Vanguard Court Watch<\/a> Tags: Court Watch<\/a> DUI<\/a> field sobriety tests<\/a> investigation procedures<\/a> Long Beach Police Department<\/a> reasonable doubt<\/a>