One of the potential hazards of a DUI offense is the “Habitual Traffic Offender” designation. Even one DUI combined with other violations within a 12-month period can trigger a habitual traffic offender charge. There are several DUI-related conditions that make a driver a habitual traffic offender:
The American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety recently released the results of its annual Traffic Safety Culture Index. Among the findings is that 70 percent of the respondents believe driving under the influence of cannabis is very dangerous or extremely dangerous. While this is a significant percentage, it is far below the 96 percent of respondents who thought driving while drowsy was very or extremely dangerous, 95.1 percent thought the same for driving under the influence of alcohol (over the legal limit), and 87.4 percent for driving under the influence of prescription drugs. A small but significant portion of the respondents – seven percent – thought it was just fine to drive under the influence of cannabis, whereas only 1.6 percent thought it was okay to drive under the influence of alcohol.
Clearly, a significant portion of the survey respondents – and all are drivers – believe that driving under the influence of marijuana is not as dangerous as many other potentially dangerous driving habits. Does this belief hold up? Study after study has concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis impairsa driver’s motor coordination, tracking, attention, concentration, the perception of time and distance, and reaction time. All can certainly affect a driver’s ability to drive safely. However, these impairments do not appear to be as pronounced as drivers who are under the influence of alcohol. But let’s be clear, just as there are varying degrees of alcohol inebriation, so too, cannabis intoxication can run the gamut from a mild high to hallucinations.
Cannabis edibles – a popular method of consuming cannabis – are often consumed in dose quantities that cause a much stronger high that other delivery methods. Furthermore, edibles are metabolized differently by the body, converting the THC to a stronger form that can cross the blood-brain barrier, causing a longer and far more intense high than one gets when smoking or “vaping” cannabis. In fact, there are many reports of a “psychedelic” experience on high dose edibles. Surely driving under the influence of edibles is unsafe.
Ketogenic (Keto) and low carbohydrate diets are among the more popular eating lifestyles these days. Someone on a strict Keto or other low carb diet metabolizes energy differently than a person who is eating a normal amount of carbs. The liver of a person on such diets breaks down fat for fuel, which creates acetone that may be released through the person’s breath. This is colloquially referred to a “being in ketosis.” The acetone can be reduced to isopropyl alcohol depending on the stage of ketosis
Anecdotal evidence (and a few scientific papers) supports a potential concern that someone on a Keto diet could cause a false positive on a breathalyzer. While the breath molecules expelled by a person in ketosis will not turn a 0.00% blood alcohol content (BAC)into a 0.08% BAC, a Keto diet may cause a breathalyzer to register over 0.08% for someone who, if not on a Keto diet, may have registered something below that. For example, someone who is in ketosis and has had a couple of drinks and might have a 0.06% true BAC, could potentially register 0.08% or more.
Law enforcement agencies use fuel cell breathalyzers, which supposedly can differentiate between ethanol molecules (those created by drinking alcohol) and other alcohol-based molecules, such as the Isopropyl molecules expelled when someone is in ketosis. However, I am unaware of any data that support this. While a blood test for BAC can establish that the driver’s BAC is under 0.08%, this can become more than an inconvenience for the driver. Beyond that, the driver who unwittingly chooses a breath test rather than a blood chemical test, may be stuck with a false positive result. A lesson here might be that if your
Two years ago I wrote about the national movementtoward lowering the per se BAC to 0.05%. Since then, Utah has become the first state to write the 0.05% per se BAC into law. There is a bill pending in the California legislature, which is currently referred to Committee (AB-1713), that would lower the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) to 0.05%. This bill is guaranteed to see pushback from various business groups, especially the restaurant and bar industry. I don’t expect the bill to become law this year but given the changing and more restrictive attitudes towards driving under the influence, it is certainly up for consideration.
Let’s consider the arguments made by those who oppose lowering the BAC to 0.05%. Do they have valid arguments?
Opponents of lowering the lawful BAC argue that lowering the legal BAC will target responsible drinkers who are not impaired and the proposed law is creeping towards a new kind of prohibition. For example, a 110-pound woman who drank of glass of wine and 30 minutes later got behind the wheel might register a BAC of 0.05%. Until 1990, the per se BAC was 0.10%in California. It was then lowered to the current 0.08%. Lowering it again to 0.05% may seem to some as though Carrie Nation’s ghost is whispering in lawmakers’ ears.
I’m sure you’ve seen the billboards: “Report Drunk Drivers. Call 9-1-1.” The CHP and other agencies even have tips for spotting and reporting a drunk driver. So, let’s say you see a car weaving somewhat on the road and you suspect a drunk driver. You call 9-1-1 and report the driver, your location, and the license plate number of the weaving vehicle. What happens next?
Generally, the local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the location will respond. Perhaps they will observe the vehicle and determine that the driver is violating a traffic law (such as Vehicle Code section 21658, lane change violation) and effect a legal traffic stop. If the detaining officers end up finding probable causeto believe the driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a legal arrest will be made.
But what if the officers locate the vehicle but it is not moving? Say the driver is parked with the engine off. Can the officers still confront the driver and potentially arrest him or her if there is reason to believe the driver is under the influence? After all, the driver is not driving, and the DUI law prohibits drivingunder the influence. Over 25 years ago, in the seminal case, Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Supreme Court held that “driving” under the DUI law requires evidence of observed volitional movement of the vehicle.
There is nothing new about the above headline, but the truth is, many of us don’t take it seriously enough. Before we even head out to that restaurant or bar or party, we should have a reliable and responsible designated driver assigned to get us home safely. That means the designated driver should be the one who drives everyone in our group to the event and someone who everyone trusts will remain sober—that includes no drugs. Too often, a plan is not made ahead and the person who seems the soberest will get the job of driving. This may boost the ego of the “designated driver” who thinks they can better hold their alcohol than the rest or limit their consumption, but it takes very little alcohol to affect a person’s drivingand put them at risk for a DUI. The best designated driver is the one who has not been drinking any alcoholic beverages.
Realistically, there is not always someone in the group who volunteers to be the designated driver. In that case, other plans should be put into place before heading out for the event. For example, everyone could agree to meet a one person’s house and pitch in for a ride share or taxi to the event and back. Of course, there would also need to be a prior agreement that the group can sleep at the meeting house. In cities that allow overnight parking, money could be saved by driving to the event but taking a rideshare or taxi back and picking up the car the next morning.
Another option may be to find someone who is willing to pick the group up when called. Maybe a parent or spouse would be willing to fill this role. But plan ahead! Make sure that person is aware that you will call for a ride; don’t expect to make a drunk 1 a.m. call asking for a pick-up.
It’s 2019 and we are on the heels of the next decade in this young millennium, a decade that promises to bring technological changes worthy of a sci-fi novel. This will likely be the decade that sees a spectacular rise in artificial intelligence, including self-driving vehicles and law enforcement that takes the film “Minority Report” out of the realm of fiction (except for the precogs). The act of drunken driving and its consequences will never be the same.
While California’s recently enacted Ignition Interlock Device (IID) lawwill require most drivers arrested for DUI to install this device, which will not allow the driver to start the vehicle if alcohol is detected, we may soon see similar alcohol detection devices installed in vehicles as a matter of course. The “Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety” (DADSS) research program is developing technology that will be installed in every new car sold. This technology is passive. That is, it will not require the driver to do anything (unlike the IID, which requires a driver to breathe into a device). The DADSS system will prevent a driver from driving the vehicle if the driver’s BAC is over 0.08% (or if in Utah, over 0.05%). The DADSS is a nationwide program funded by the government and the private sector, including the automotive industry.
How will the DADSS system work? Currently two technologies are being explored: a breath-based system and a touch system.
A Southern California man has posted one of the most poignant yet distressing social media feeds I have seen. In a Facebook picture, Zach Kincaid is standing over a coffin, his young child looking on. Inside the coffin is his 29-year-old wife, her unborn child in her arms. In another photo, Mr. Kincaid is holding his dead unborn daughter, who was only a month away from her anticipated birth date.
On September 9 Mr. Kincaid was speaking with his wife on her cell phone speaker as she was driving on Warren Road in Riverside County when he heard her scream, then he heard a collision. A drunk driver, pro boxing champion, Marcos Forestal-Coutin, was allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol as his speeding car veered into the wrong lane, hitting Mr. Kincaid’s wife’s vehicle head on. In what must be one of the most egregiously arrogant statements, Forestal-Coutin claimed Mrs. Kincaid’s vehicle “appeared” in front of him and then went on to complain about the damage done to his vehicle. Forestal even livestreamed a video of the crash scene.
The social media photos are very disturbing and hopefully will impress the many thousands who have seen them. Drunken driving can kill, and these photos make that lasting impression. There is really no excuse to drive drunk. Unfortunately, a brain affected by alcohol makes poor decisions.
CAN THE DMV SUSPEND YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE IF YOU ARE CONVICTED OF BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE?
The DMV wields a substantial amount of power over our driving privileges. When a person is arrested for driving under the influence, his or her license to drive is immediately suspended (with a 30-day grace period until the suspension takes place) unless the driver can successfully challenge the DUI arrest in an administrative per se (APS) hearing. As I have discussed on this website, the APS hearing is a completely separatefrom the criminal matter and, in virtually all DUI cases, the suspension of the arrested driver’s license to drive takes place before the DUI is adjudicated by the criminal court.
Although APS proceedings seem to fly in the face in the face of due process since the driver has not even been convicted yet of the alleged DUI, the appellate courts have consistently held that the administrative suspension is constitutional.
In previous blog posts I discussed driving under the influence of marijuana (cannabis) and the difficulties provingthat a driver was under the influence at the time he or she was driving. The active ingredient in cannabis, THC, stays in a person’s system long after the effect wears offmaking it difficult to prove that a driver was under the influence at the time of driving. And, unlike alcohol, a driver under the influence of marijuana does not always display the obvious symptoms. Despite these difficulties in proving the offense, drivers are being charged and convicted of driving under the influence of cannabis and in recent years, there have been increasing numbers of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of marijuana convictions (Penal Code 191.5(a).)
Recently a 24-year-old man was charged in Kern County jury of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence after swerving his car and hitting a teacher who was seven months pregnant, killing both the woman and her unborn child. (The manslaughter charge only attached to the woman due to a “loophole” in California law which may prosecute the murder of a fetus but does not define a fetus as a victim under the manslaughter laws.) The prosecutor alleged that the driver was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the crash. Under California law, if a driver kills another person while driving under the influence, he or she may be charged with grossly negligent manslaughter. The jury found the young man guilty but convicted him on a lesser charge of negligent vehicular manslaughter rather than with gross negligence.
In San Diego County, a 27-year-old man made a U-turn on the freeway going the wrong way and crashed head on into a motorcyclist, also 27 years old. The crash killed the motorcyclist. It was alleged that the driver was high on marijuana at the time of the crash. The driver was never given a field sobriety tests but laboratory tests were conducted on the driver at the hospital which showed “a higher level of marijuana than they normally see,” according the district attorney prosecuting the case. The driver was convicted by a jury of gross vehicular manslaughter and sentenced by the court to six years in prison. While the driver’s behavior (making a U-turn on a freeway going the wrong way for three miles) certainly suggests he was under the influence of something, apparently the only substance present in his system was the THC. It is hard to imagine that cannabis would cause such dangerous driving.After trial, the prosecutor stated that the toxicologist could not definitively say that the driver’s conduct was attributable to the influence of marijuana.