Carlos A. Canet, Esq. has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1983. He began his legal career at the office of the Public Defender in Miami under the tutelage of Bennett H. Brummer. In 1989, he entered private practice and in 1990 joined the law firm of Essen & Essen. Carlos remained at the Essen firm until opening his present office in 2006. His practice has been almost exclusively the defense of DUI cases. Carlos has been responsible for some locally significant rulings and opinions.
In 1995, his motion excluding all field sobriety exercises in Broward County led to the opinion in State v. Meador. In 2005, his motion to exclude breath test results based upon the use of tap water to check Intoxilyzer calibration led to the decision in State v. Cubic. More recently, motions to suppress breath test results in Broward have led to several county court orders suppressing test results in hundreds of cases based upon questionable inspection techniques and practices. Currently, he maintains his office in Fort Lauderdale where he is working on a book for James Publishing titled, “Pattern DUI Defenses.”
CLE Accreditation:
mylawCLE seeks approval in all states except VA.
|
CLE 2.00 – AK
CLE 2.00 – AL
CLE 2.00 – AR
CLE 2.00 – AZ
CLE 2.00 – CA
CLE 2.40 – CO
CLE 2.00 – DE
CLE 2.40 – FL
CLE 2.00 – GA
CLE 2.00 – HI
|
CLE 2.00 – IA
CLE 2.00 – ID
CLE 2.00 – IL
CLE 2.00 – IN
CLE 2.00 – KS
CLE 2.00 – KY
CLE 2.00 – LA
CLE 2.00 – ME
CLE 2.00 – MN
CLE 2.40 – MO
|
CLE 2.00 – MP
CLE 2.00 – MS
CLE 2.00 – MT
CLE 2.00 – NC
CLE 2.00 – ND
CLE 2.00 – NE
CLE 2.00 – NH
CLE 2.40 – NJ
CLE 2.00 – NM
CLE 2.00 – NV
|
CLE 2.40 – NY
CLE 2.00 – OH
CLE 2.40 – OK
CLE 2.00 – OR
CLE 2.00 – PA
CLE 2.00 – PR
CLE 2.40 – RI
CLE 2.00 – SC
CLE 2.00 – TN
CLE 2.00 – TX
|
CLE 2.00 – UT
CLE N/A – VA
CLE 2.40 – VI
CLE 2.00 – VT
CLE 2.00 – WA
CLE 2.40 – WI
CLE 2.40 – WV
CLE 2.00 – WY
|
Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE will seek credit where attending attorneys are primarily licensed for all of its live webinars and live teleconferences, except in states which allow for reciprocity (see reciprocity section below). Credit for CLE in a self-study format is sought for in most states; however, some states do not allow for CLE credit to be earned in a self-study format (see the self-study section below). Many states typically decide whether a program qualifies for MCLE credit in their jurisdiction 4-8 weeks after the program application is submitted. For many live events, credit approval is not received prior to the program. Credit hours granted are subject to approval from each state.
Reciprocity
Additionally, some states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, CO, FL, ME, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, PR, and SD. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.
On-demand CLE
myLawCLE will seek on-demand approval in all states except Virginia and Arkansas (outside reciprocal provisions stated above).
myLawCLE Credit Guarantee
myLawCLE offers a program and credit approval guarantee. If a registered attendee is unhappy with a CLE program they have attended, myLawCLE will offer that attended access to another complimentary CLE or a full refund in order to insure the attendeeís satisfaction.
Additionally, on all online CLE programs application for approval will be made in all states where attending attorneys are primarily licensed in. If a registered attorney does not receive credit from their state for any reason, a full refund will be granted.
Section I. Cross Examination Strategies: Investigating Officer (DUI Guru)
a) Setting Up The Bad Stop
i. ‘Must-Know’ Law (cases you cannot be without)
ii. Cross Examination of Cop
› No Reasonable Suspicion Of Offense or Impairment
› No Probable Cause For Infraction
› Was It A “Stop”?
b) FSE’s & Coerced Participation
i. Motion In Limine v. Motion To Suppress
ii. ID of LEO Tactics
› Terminology
› Show of Lawful Authority
iii. Cross Examination of Cop
Section II. Pure Fact Based Defenses & Their Development
a) Asleep At the Wheel
b) Inoperable Vehicle
c) Designated Driver
d) Domestic Scenario
e) Language Barrier
f) Accident Responsibility
g) Leaving The Scene
h) Leftover Unique Factual Scenarios (TBD)
Section III. The Compromised Chemical Test (Breath Legal Based Cont’d)
a) “Admissibility v. Weight”
i. Setting Up The Specific Issue To Avoid This Dilemma
› It’s a “Scientific” test
b) Compliance With Inspection Regulations
i. Local Inspection Procedures
ii. Statewide Inspection Procedures
iii. Inspection Error Messages & Compliance Issues
c) Compliance With Test Regulations (LEO Response To Error Messages)
i. Deprivation Period
ii. Mouth Alcohol
iii. Interferent Detect
iv. RFI
v. Other (TBD)
Section IV. The Compromised Laboratory Chemical Test (Blood & Urine Legal Based Cont’d)
a) Law Enforcement & Sample Integrity
i. Handling & Preservation
› Vehicle Trunk Storage
› Delayed Transport
› Expired Blood & Urine Kits
› Subject Privacy (Urine sample delivery)
b) Lab & Lab Personnel Credibility
i. Law Enforcement Lab v. Hospital Lab
› Whole Blood v. Serum Blood Issues
ii. Scientifically Insufficient Lab Procedures & Evidentiary Questions
› Probative Weight v. Prejudicial Effect (Technical Relevancy)
c) Compliance with Sub-standard procedures
i. Legal Compliance (Motion To Suppress)
ii. Scientific Compliance (Motion In Limine)
d) Cross Examination of State Laboratory Expert
Section V. Chemical Test Results (Trial Based Strategies)
a) Avoid Pitfalls Of Presentation of Technical Defenses & Issues
i. Setting The Table (Voir Dire Techniques)
› Achieving Effective Simplicity
b) Meaningful Presentation Through Cross Examination Techniques
i. Time of Driving (Bell Curve Defense)
ii. Partition Ratio Defense
iii. Delayed Sample Delivery
iv. Lack of Compliance With Approved Procedures
v. Error Messages
vi. Parameters of Accuracy Deviation
vii. Negative Controls & Calibration Curves
viii. Sample Integrity
ix. Screens v. Confirmatory Testing
x. Lab Credibility
› Forensic vs. Hospital Labs
Section VI. The Ultimate Defense Tool: The Video Recording
a) The Positive Video
i. The Positive Video & Chemical Test Results
b) The Negative Video
c) Destruction of Video
i. Destruction of Favorable Evidence & Remedy
