Articles Posted in DUI

by

CALIFORNIA NOT THE STRICTEST STATE ON DRIVERS UNDER THE INFLUENCE

WalletHub recently tallied up the states from the strictest to the most lenient on DUIs. You may be surprised to learn that according to WalletHub’s methodology, California was among the most lenient on DUIs. WalletHub identified 15 key metrics and assigned weighted points to each metric. The key metrics included minimum jail time for 1st and 2nd offenses, the point at which a DUI becomes an automatic felony, minimum fines, automatic license suspension duration, average insurance rate increase after a DUI, and other factors. California ranked among the more lenient states, coming in #34 out of 50 overall.

So where did California rank high? Well, as you might guess given that we have among the most expensive auto insurance rates in the nation, the only metric where California ranked #1 was the average insurance rate increase after a DUI. Indeed, the Auto Club of Southern California reports that a DUI will run a 1st time offender an average of $10,000 more in insurance costs over the ten year look-back period. Let’s just say that Uber or Lyft—even many rides over—will be cheaper than one DUI.

Continue reading →

by

It’s summer travel season and maybe you are planning a trip to another country. Don’t let your R&R be ruined by a driving under the influence arrest. You may not be aware of this but most countries have harsher DUI laws than those in the United States. Now, how strictly those laws are enforced may be another matter but here’s the low down:

In Canada, the BAC threshold runs from 0.05% to 0.08% depending on the province. Same in Mexico, where the BAC limit is determined by state and can run between 0.04% and 0.08%, but the national limit is 0.08% for those states that do not impose their own law.

Going to Europe? You might want to lay off the alcohol altogether if you are driving. In Scandinavia, for example, you can be arrested for a DUI with just a 0.02% BAC (Norway and Sweden). Denmark is slightly more lenient with a 0.05% BAC threshold. Elsewhere in Europe, the BAC reading at which you can be arrested for drunken driving is generally 0.05% although many European countries have a lower threshold if you are involved in an accident. For example, in Germany you can be arrested for drunken driving if you are involved in an accident (regardless of fault) with a BAC of 0.03%. Only Malta and the U.K. have a 0.08% BAC threshold; the rest of the countries run between 0.00% and 0.05%. (Yes, 0.00%: in the former Eastern bloc countries of Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Croatia you can be arrested for drunken driving with any amount of alcohol in your system.)

Continue reading →

by

CONTINUOUS MONITORING OF ALCOHOL LEVELS—THE SCRAM DEVICE

Most people in California are aware that there is a device that may be ordered installed in person’s vehicle upon conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol. This device, called an Ignition Interlock device or IID is a mechanism that prevents a person from starting a vehicle without first blowing into the device, which registers any alcohol in the person’s system. If any alcohol is registered, the vehicle will not start. Some counties in California require that this device be installed— even for first time DUIs— but in most California counties, ordering the installation of a IID is left to judgment of the court.

Most people in California are not aware, however, of another alcohol monitoring device that may be ordered by the court in DUI cases. This device, called a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor or SCRAM device is an ankle bracket that continuously monitors for alcohol in the system through the skin. When the court orders installation of an IID, the defendant is only monitored for blood alcohol content when he or she wants to drive, when the SCRAM device is worn, the defendant is continuously monitored. DUI probation includes a zero-tolerance condition, that is, anyone on probation for a DUI cannot drive with even a small amount of alcohol in his or her system; the IID is just an extra level of enforcement. But if the court orders that the DUI probationer cannot drink at all, the court may order that the defendant wear a SCRAM.

Continue reading →

by

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT DUI BLOOD TEST REQUIRES A WARRANT

On June 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Birchfield v. North Dakota, which will affect California’s “implied consent” DUI laws. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits a DUI breath test incident to an arrest without the need for a warrant but a warrantless blood test is unconstitutional. Both are considered a search governed by the Fourth Amendment but the Supreme Court found its decision on a privacy rights analysis vis-a-vis the need to obtain a BAC reading. Finding that a breath test is not a significant intrusion on one’s privacy but the piercing of skin and extraction of a part of the subject’s body is, the Supreme Court held that the extraction of blood to measure BAC is not a reasonable alternative in light of the availability of the less intrusive method.

The case was not just an academic exercise; the Supreme Court took this case in order to decide if states can make it a crime to refuse BAC chemical testing. Based on the Court’s analysis, the Supreme’s held that a motorist under arrest for DUI cannot be held criminally liable for refusing a blood test but can be held criminally liable for refusing a breath test.

Continue reading →

by

Here’s a DUI arrest scenario I occasionally encounter in my practice: A client is arrested for driving under the influence in a private parking lot, for example, or on a street in a gated community, or even in the client’s own driveway and wants to fight the DUI arrest by arguing that the traffic stop and arrest did not occur on a public road. Many people are incorrectly informed that the driving under the influence laws require that the vehicle was being driven on a public street or highway. That misunderstanding is not without some foundation; until the early 1980’s the California Vehicle Code made it illegal to drive under the influence “upon a highway or upon other than a highway areas in which are open to the general public.” But that wording has long since been removed from the DUI statutes.

The scenario will sometimes go something like this: The police, following behind the driver, turned on their lights and sirens to initiate a stop but the driver only minutes from home, turned into her gated community with the police still following behind, or pulled into his driveway where the police then effected their detention upon the driver in his driveway. My client will want to fight the stop thinking it is unlawful to arrest a person on their private property without a warrant. While this may hold true in certain arrests, it is not the case in DUI arrests.

The problem with the argument is that the driver cannot evade arrest by simply continuing on until private property is reached. A driver “may not defeat a detention or arrest which is set in motion in a public place by fleeing to a private place.” (People v. Lloyd (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1425, 1430.)

Continue reading →

by

THE DUI CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS

So you were arrested for DUI. You’ve already requested (or decided not to request) an Administrative Per Se Hearing with the DMV, what comes next? Separate and apart from the DMV hearing, you will be required to appear before a judge in criminal court for an arraignment. This is the first step in the criminal proceedings. Arraignments can often be confusing and it is therefore advisable that you hire an attorney to represent you prior to the arraignment. (If you cannot afford an attorney, a public defender will step into to represent you but often the first time the public defender even sees your criminal file is right before you appear in front of the judge for your arraignment.)

At the arraignment, the judge and prosecutor will throw around a lot of legal terminology that may be unfamiliar to you but what you need to know is that the purpose of the arraignment is for the judge to inform you of the charges against you and for you to plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Usually at the arraignment the prosecutor will offer a “plea bargain” wherein you agree to plead guilty in return for a particular sentence. You can accept the offer and plead guilty at the time of the arraignment. If that is what you choose to do, the criminal part of your DUI case will essentially be over. The judge will sentence you and you will only need to complete paperwork at the clerk’s desk and serve your sentence.

Continue reading →

by

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU VIOLATE THE CONDITIONS OF YOUR DUI PROBATION?

First- and second-time DUI charges that don’t involve an accident, injury, or death almost always end in a sentence of probation, or what is more correctly termed, a grant of probation in lieu of a jail sentence. What happens if you violate the terms of your DUI probation?

First let’s discuss how you might find yourself in violation of probation. Probation on a DUI offense almost always requires that you pay certain fines and fees, that you attend DUI classes, and often that you attend other alcohol-related programs such as a MADD program, attendance at AA meetings. You might be required to complete community service work also. Assuming you are granted a restricted license after the mandatory suspension of your license, a condition of DUI probation will prohibit driving at any time with any measurable amount of alcohol in your system (“zero tolerance”). You may be required as a condition of probation to install an Ignition Interlock Device. The violation of any laws (misdemeanor or felony) while on probation is a violation of your DUI probation; that would include such things as driving without a valid license or without valid auto insurance but not minor traffic infractions.

Continue reading →

by

Following up on my two previous posts that discussed chemical testing for driving under the influence of marijuana and marijuana per se laws, I think it would be interesting to the reader if I delved a bit more deeply into these topics. Driving under the influence of marijuana is sure to be a hot topic for the next few years as the legalization of recreational marijuana appears to be a trend.

I mentioned in my previous posts that unlike blood alcohol testing, testing for marijuana in a person’s system is much more problematic, at least as far as testing to determine if a driver was under the influence of the drug.

Urine testing will be positive for marijuana for 1 to 7 or more days after a person’s last use of the drug. A person can and likely will test positive for marijuana in a urine test even if he or she had not used the drug for days. Therefore, urine testing is unreliable proof that a person was driving under the influence. Besides that, while urine test can detect marijuana use, it does not detect THC, which is the psychoactive component in marijuana. There is no way to know by a urine test how much THC is in their system.

Continue reading →

by

Driving under the influence of marijuana (DUIM) is certain to become the new watchword on California highways. Medical marijuana has been a presence in California for many years and the use of recreational marijuana may become legal if California voters approve a proposed November 2016 ballot initiative. But at present, California law has no “per se” law governing the act of driving under the influence of marijuana as it does for driving under the influence of alcohol.

As everyone knows, having a blood alcohol level over .08% while driving in California creates the legal presumption of driving under the influence. Whether you think you are affected by the alcohol in your system or not, if you have a .08% blood alcohol content, you are driving under the influence under the law, no “ifs, ands, or buts.” That is the “per se” law. However, if the cops suspect you are driving under the influence of marijuana, there is no per se law in California. In other words, in order to be convicted of driving under the influence of marijuana, the prosecution must prove you could not safely drive due to marijuana intoxication by the circumstantial evidence. That may soon change.

The move is on to enact a per se law in California that would make any driver who tests positive for a certain amount of THC presumptively driving unlawfully under the influence. Currently only Colorado and Washington State—two states that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana— have per se DUIM laws. In both states, a driver who tests with more than 5 nonograms of THC per millimeter of blood is presumed to be DUIM. As I discussed in a previous post, testing for THC is burdened by a lack of reliable and accurate testing methods. However, scientists are working hard to develop methods to test for THC levels that officers can use in the field.

Continue reading →