This case is not complicated! This is definately a "double jeopardy" case! The phrase "double jeopardy" stems from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the words "twice put in jeopardy." The full clause is "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This clause is intended to limit prosecutorial abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense, as a means of harassment or oppression. It is ... in harmony with the common law concept of res judicata, which prevents courts from relitigating issues and claims that have already been the subject of a final judgment. Veronica Gonzalez states in her article: Under a state law, a form called, 'Implied Consent Offense Notice' is required to be filed by the magistrate judges while processing people charged with DWI offense. This new state law went into effect December 1, 2006. "For example, people staying in jail have a right to call a witness to come observe them or to have a separate alcohol test administered. Magistrate judges are supposed to require defendants to list all people they want to contact along with their witnesses' telephone numbers. The year-old law also requires magistrates to include in the case file a copy of the form that verifies the procedures have taken place." OKAY, THE LAW, IS THE LAW! NOW, if these people were not informed of their rights while 'being processed', then the magistrate did not follow "the state law", under "Improper Arrest and Procedure", therefore, violating the rights of these defendants. YOU DA'S, ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES NEED TO LEAVE THESE 83 OR MORE CASES ALONE!!! AND DISMISSED ALL OTHER CASES OF DEFENDANTS WHOM RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED!!! THESE ARE THROWN OUT CASES!!! the state gets only "ONE BITE OF THE APPLE"!!!