DUI Blogger

The DUI-Murder trial started Monday of Danny Ruiz, a Laguna Hills man accused of killing his pregnant girlfriend when he crashed into a tree with a .17 BAC. Ruiz was on probation for a prior DUI. In that case, he signed an admonition acknowledging that he could be prosecuted for murder if he were to kill someone in the future as a result of drunk driving.

DUI-homicide cases can be difficult for the prosecutor, according to Orange County DUI Attorney John Murray. "Jurors hesitate to convict someone of the ultimate crime for conduct that amounted to an accident. There usually has to be very aggravating circumstances."

California law allows drunk drivers who cause a fatal accident to be prosecuted for second-degree murder under an "implied malice" theory. This means the person intentionally and knowingly engaged in conduct dangerous to human life, and with a conscious disregard for human life. Prosecutors tend to pursue DUI-murder charges mainly for defendants who had prior DUI convictions.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Research released today by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is likely to change the policy debates about distracted driving. Among other things, the research shows that drivers talking on a phone are four times as likely to crash...roughly the same increased odds as a driver with a .08 BAC.

These statistics undoubtedly will bolster the position of policy-makers seeking more regulation to reduce distracted driving. California already leads the nation in this regard, having enacted laws that prohibit hand-held phone use and texting or Internet use behind the wheel. That debate is pretty much over.

But the NHTSA data will take the policy debate a step further. The studies indicate that bluetooth or hands-free handsets don't solve the problem. The phone conversation itself distracts motorists from focusing on driving tasks, regardless of the devices used.

Continue reading "New Studies to Change Policy Debate About Distracted Driving" »

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI , News & Information

Bookmark:

The Ventura County court system boasts a long-standing reputation as one of the harshest in the state, especially when it comes to DUI enforcement. The D.A.'s office refuses to plea bargain DUI cases to lesser charges. And judges impose jail time even on first offense cases with no aggravating circumstances.

But the County's DUI polices have seen a round of changes starting July 1, 2009. First-time DUI defendants with a low BAC are now offered "no jail time" deals. And the Hall of Justice has all but done away with DUI pre-trials, now forcing defendants to settle their cases in arraignment court or else set them for trial. If a case gets set for trial, the "no jail time" deal is off the table and offers go up.

"The court's dockets are simply overloaded with DUI cases," says Ventura County DUI attorney Darrell York. "It's unsustainable. So these policy changes are an effort to settle more DUI cases early and quickly." The courts are using a carrot and a stick. The incentive is a waiver of jail time for the more innocuous cases that plead out early. The stick is "upping" the potential sentencing for cases that don't.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI , DUI Legislation , News & Information

Bookmark:

California's implied consent law requires those lawfully arrested for DUI to submit to a blood or breath test to measure their BAC. Yet many arrestees refuse to take either test and thus get charged with a DUI with "chemical test refusal." Are "refusers" better off?

It depends. They face good news and bad news. The good news is that prosecutors generally loathe taking refusal DUI cases to trial. They lack the most damning piece of state's evidence: a blood or breath test revealing the defendant's BAC. Many prosecutors prefer to plea bargain refusal DUI cases on terms more favorable to the defense. Or if the case does go to trial, the accused usually has a better shot at a "not guilty" verdict.

Now, for the bad news. If the refuser loses his DMV hearing, a one-year driver’s license suspension will be imposed. And there's no provision here for a restricted license. It's just a hard, outright, one-year suspension. Get caught behind the wheel: go to jail.

Continue reading "To Blow or Not to Blow? That is the Question" »

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Chemical Test Refusal , DUI , DUI Consequences

Bookmark:

Stated in Vehicle Code 23136, California DUI law makes it illegal for minors under 21 years of age to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in their systems. An underage drinker who drives with even a .01 BAC faces a one-year suspension of his/her driver’s license.

California's underage DUI law is based on the notion that because minors can't consume alcohol legally, they shouldn't be able to drink and drive legally at any BAC level. Moreover, because minors are less experienced drivers, they are thought to pose a particular danger if they drive after consuming alcohol.

These points are well taken. But still, a one-year driver’s license suspension can be unduly onerous. Many of those under the suspension must drive to work or school. Lack of transportation can interrupt their education and ability to earn a living; factors that in turn can lead to more drinking. Imposing a restricted license that allows at least limited driving for such necessary activities would make better policy sense.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI , DUIs and Minors , Underage DUI

Bookmark:

In People v McNeal, the California Supreme Court yesterday made it easier for those accused of DUI in the state to challenge the accuracy of breath test results. We applaud the decision.

Prior to the ruling, DUI defendants were precluded at trial from introducing evidence of individual variation in the conversion of breath test results to a blood alcohol reading. The Court's decision in McNeal reverses this policy, allowing such evidence in "generic DUI charges" but not in "per se DUI charges" under Vehicle Code 23152b.

While the McNeal decision marks only a partial victory for DUI defense, it's a significant one nonetheless. The ruling provides DUI defense attorneys much more ammunition at jury trials to challenge the accuracy of breath test evidence. In time, it should lead to significantly more "not guilty" verdicts and reduce the number of wrongful convictions in DUI cases.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI , DUI Legislation , News & Information

Bookmark:

California hit & run law requires a person involved in an accident to stop and provide identifying information to the other parties. Failure to do so may invite a felony charge under Vehicle Code 20001 if the accident caused injuries, or a misdemeanor charge under Vehicle Code 20002 if there was only property damage.

An increasingly common issue involves people who fail to stop because of safety concerns. For example, the driver may strike a pedestrian and then see an angry mob form. Or the driver may get in a fender-bender, but see that the other party is irate and potentially violent. Is it okay to flee the scene of the accident in these cases?

Technically, California hit & run law offers no exception for this situation. But practically speaking, prosecutors have discretion as to which cases they file. Typically they will look to see if the fleeing driver made some alternative way of reporting the accident. For example, suppose the driver immediately calls the police to report the accident and ask that an officer meet her at the scene. She then returns to the scene once police arrive. In a case like this, prosecutors are unlikely to file criminal hit & run charges.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Hit & Run

Bookmark:

California Vehicle Code 23152a makes it illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs or both. The most common type of DUI drugs case prosecuted in the state is DUI of marijuana.

Unlike alcohol cases, California law imposes no “per se” limit on the amount of marijuana that can be in a driver’s body. A blood test revealing THC levels, in and of itself, proves nothing. Therefore DUI marijuana prosecutions invariably rely on the testimony of police officers that the suspect exhibited signs and symptoms of marijuana intoxication. These tend to include bloodshot eyes, slow speech, a confused thought process and a lack of physical coordination.

Even if one believes that being “high on weed” impairs driving ability, police still lack a reliable means of gauging whether a driver is indeed high. Most beat cops are very poorly trained at drug recognition evaluation. And the “signs and symptoms” associated with marijuana intoxication often stem from other causes. For example, bloodshot eyes may result from lack of sleep. Lack of coordination is typical in a high-stress situation, as when a person is forced to perform field sobriety tests following a DUI traffic stop.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Driving Under the Influence of Drugs , Marijuana DUI

Bookmark:

Most people arrested for DUI in California get charged with two offenses: Vehicle Code 23152(a) driving under the influence, and Vehicle Code 23152(b) driving with an excessive BAC (defined as .08 or higher). Although both crimes make up California DUI law, they define separate offenses. Moreover, it’s possible to commit each without committing the other.

A person violates Vehicle Code 23152(a) by driving when he is impaired by alcohol or drugs. This impairment may exist at various BAC levels. For instance, a driver who is especially sensitive to alcohol may become impaired at a .05 BAC. If proven, he would be in violation of 23152(a) VC, but not 23152(b) VC, since his BAC is still below the legal limit.

Conversely, a driver with a high tolerance for alcohol may have a .11 BAC, yet still not yet be “impaired” in his driving abilities. This driver would be in violation of 23152(b) VC, but not 23152(a) VC. His BAC may be excessive, but he’s nevertheless sober enough to where he’s not “under the influence.”

Stated another way, a low BAC is not necessarily a defense to a “driving under the influence” charge. And actual sobriety is not necessarily a defense to an “excessive BAC” charge. But regardless of technicalities, a low BAC or evidence of sobriety make it difficult for the prosecutor to prevail in any California DUI case.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI , DUI Consequences , News & Information

Bookmark:

The implications of a California DUI don’t differ significantly for residents versus out of state visitors. The legal standard is the same for both: a DUI can be charged for driving while intoxicated and/or with an excessive BAC. And the court-imposed penalties are the same for a DUI conviction.

The differences arise with respect to drivers license issues. The California DMV lacks authority to suspend or revoke a license issued by another state. Therefore, an out of state driver with a California DUI cannot get his/her drivers license suspended directly by the DMV.

However, California and most states belong to the “Interstate Compact.” This is an agreement among 45 of the states’ DMVs to share information and honor each others’ drivers license suspensions. This means that the California DMV will report nationally any action it takes against a foreign license. Most often, the sister state issuing the license will respond by imposing its own restriction, suspension or revocation.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

As many court dockets get clogged with an ever-increasing number of DUI cases, more of them are getting plea bargained. Typically this means a reduction of the charge to a wet reckless, dry reckless, misdemeanor exhibition of speed or even traffic infractions.

Throughout the DUI court process, which may take months and involve several court hearings, prosecutors and defense lawyers negotiate the terms of a plea bargain. Prosecutors want the accused to plead guilty to a DUI and suffer consequences such as fines, DUI school and even jail time. The defense wants to avoid conviction and avoid these consequences.

By fighting a DUI charge and attacking the state's evidence, the defense increases the chances the D.A. or the judge will offer a "better deal." Two primary factors give the accused leverage. The first is the extent to which he can establish DUI defenses that reduce the likelihood of a conviction if the case goes to trial.

Continue reading "DUI Plea Bargaining: Supply & Demand" »

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI , Plea Bargaining

Bookmark:

Most people think of California DUI cases as involving "drunk driving." But the state's DUI law prohibits more than just driving under the influence of alcohol. The Vehicle Code make sit illegal to drive while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs or any combination of the two.

Driving under the influence of drugs is often referred to as "DUID" or "California DUI of Drugs." Some of these cases involve suspects arrested for driving while intoxicated by illicit drugs such as methamphetamine, crack cocaine or LSD.

But an increasing number of California DUI cases involve suspects driving while taking prescription drugs, even lawfully prescribed drugs. The two biggest trends we're seeing in DUID law are DUI Ambien and DUI Vicodin cases.

Many of the DUI Ambien cases involve "sleep driving." A person goes to sleep after taking ambien and maybe also a glass of wine, and wakes to find herself having driven somewhere while in a drug-induced trance. Most of the DUI Vicodin cases involve a person prescribed vocidin as a pain-killer after an injury or a surgery. He continues to drive as he normally does, but gets pulled over and cited for DUI.

Some people mistakenly think they can't be prosecuted for DUID if the drugs were prescribed by their doctor. Not so. California DUI law prohibits driving when your faculties are impaired by any substance: legal or illegal, illicit or prescribed. Nevertheless, a good DUI attorney can often find problems in the evidence and exploit them to get a DUID charge reduced or dismissed.

Posted by Neil Shouse | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: DUI of Prescription Drugs

Bookmark: