PEOPLE v. ALVARADO
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>PEOPLE v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >PEOPLE v. ALVARADO</b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 2/7/11 <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b ><sub>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION </sub></b> <br/><b ><sub> </sub></b><sub></sub> <br/>IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA <br/> <br/>COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO <br/> <br/>APPELLATE DIVISION <br/> <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=306 valign=top > <br/>THE PEOPLE, <br/> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent, <br/> <br/> vs. <br/> <br/>WALTER ALVARADO, <br/> <br/> Defendant and Appellant. </td> <td width=19 valign=top > <br/>) <br/>) <br/>) <br/>) <br/>) ) ) ) <br/>) <br/>) </td> <td width=299 valign=top > <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> Case No. 6951 <br/> <br/> Super. Ct. No. 2404632 <br/> <h6 ><b ><sub> </sub></b></h6> </td> </tr> <tr > <td width=306 valign=top > <br/> </td> <td width=19 valign=top > <br/>) </td> <td width=299 valign=top > <br/> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of <a href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">California</a>, City and County of San Francisco. <br/> Kamala Harris and George Gascón, District Attorneys, and Louise Ogden, Assistant District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent. <br/> <br/> Christopher Gauger for Defendant and Appellant. <br/> <br/> <br/>BY THE COURT:<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> <br/> <br/><b >I. <u>INTRODUCTION</u></b> <br/><b > </b> <br/> Appellant, Walter Alvarado, challenges the denial of his motion to suppress following his arrest at a DUI checkpoint. He had been charged with driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08%. <br/> The issue before us is whether the People sustained their <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">burden of proof</a> in establishing the factors under <i >Ingersoll v. Palmer</i> (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321 (<i >Ingersoll</i>). That case lists the factors governing whether a DUI checkpoint is operated in compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.<i > </i>(<i >People v. Banks</i> (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, 934 (<i >Banks</i>).) <br/>While we only follow established law here, we write to address what appear to be repeated difficulties encountered by the People in making the record required to establish the legitimacy of these checkpoints. <br/><b >II. <u>FACTUAL BACKGROUND</u></b> <br/> <br/>The location of the checkpoint was decided by Captain Greg Coralles, although there was no evidence on the factors considered by the captain, who did not testify. The court did hear from a Sergeant Edgar Callejas, who testified that the location had been used as DUI checkpoint about four to six times previously, although he did not say why. The date of <a name="OLE_LINK2"></a><a name="OLE_LINK1"></a>February 1, 2009, was chosen because it was â€