This is because DUI field sobriety tests or “FSTs” are highly subjective, used by officers to determine that you are driving under the influence. The problem is that even the “scientifically validated” FSTs are only between 65-77% accurate at detecting alcohol and/or drug impairment. The remaining tests (which comprise the bulk of DUI field sobriety tests) have absolutely no data to support their reliability.

Even a teetotaler (someone who completely abstains from drinking alcohol) would likely “fail” the FST regimen, as officers can find fault with almost anyone’s performance on these “balance and coordination” tests.

So the bottom line is this…don’t help the police arrest you for DUI. If you politely refuse to submit to the FSTs, you are well within your rights to do so and will make it more difficult for the prosecution to prove that you were guilty of drunk driving.

The poll was based on a number of factors:

1. the number of alcohol-related liver disease deaths,


2. the number of binge drinkers in each city,


3. each city’s DUI arrest rates,


4. the number of fatal alcohol-related accidents, and


5. how Mothers Against Drunk Driving rates each city.

The problem with this is that DUI isn’t the only explanation for bad driving. Officer, please tell me which of those observations isn’t also indicative of a driver who is distracted? Who is tired? Who is in a rush? Who is young and reckless? Or who is simply just a good driver (referring to the observation about “cautious” driving)?

DUI isn’t the only explanation for bad driving, it’s just not. As a Los Angeles DUI defense lawyer, I’ve come across plenty of California Highway Patrol Officers, LAPD, and other local cops who still subscribe to this way of thinking…and every time I still love cross-examining them on this very issue, enjoying the immense satisfaction when they concede my point.

And therein lies the problem. Unless this woman told the cops she had been drinking prior to the accident…and not just drinking, but drinking to the point of intoxication…the police had no business arresting her for DUI.

In all states, the crime is driving under the influence. This means that unless the cops can prove that the woman was drunk before the accident, she must be acquitted of the DUI charge. As a Los Angeles DUI defense attorney, I encounter this problem on a regular basis. People have accidents (especially hit and runs), get nervous, go home, and start drinking.

Clues from the accident lead the police to the suspect…who is by then oftentimes drunk…when the police then jump to the conclusion that the individual must have been drinking prior to the accident. This assumption frequently results in a false DUI arrest and wrongful DUI charges for the suspect.

The man was indicted on charges of aggravated manslaughter. Lucky for him, he wasn’t driving in California at the time, or he surely would have been charged with murder.

This is because California courts permit prosecutors to convict repeat DUI offenders for second degree murder under certain circumstances. Known as “Watson” murder or DUI second degree murder, this charge is alleged when prosecutors believe that an individual has special knowledge about the dangers of drinking and driving…and knowingly acts with disregard for that fact.

In theory, these charges could be filed against an individual who suffered at least one prior DUI. The fact that this man was involved in seven prior DUI incidents would surely make him a candidate for this charge.

Unlike typical California DUI manslaughter charges, “Watson” murder or DUI second degree murder charges carry a potential lifetime prison sentence.

While there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about these facts, it brings up an important point. If you find yourself in the unfortunate position of ever hitting a parking meter, bus bench, or other public property, you must report the incident or face possible charges for Vehicle Code 20002 hit and run.

California Vehicle Code 20002 hit and run charges may be filed anytime you hit public property and don’t immediately report the incident to your local law enforcement agency. You don’t have to leave a note like you would if you hit private property (someone’s car, for example), but you must inform the police.

While the details surrounding Maualuga’s arrest are somewhat scarce, we do know that he was charged with DUI and reckless driving. We can assume that he was either witnessed hitting the meter and cars or that he stopped after doing so, since he wasn’t additionally charged with a hit and run.

The California Highway Patrol observed Pasdar on the 405 San Diego Freeway driving over 90 miles per hour and straddling two lanes. When they pulled him over, they smelled the alcohol within the car.

If Los Angeles Prosecutors convict Pasdar of DUI, he will likely face at least 96 hours in a county jail. This is because factors such as excessive speed and refusing to submit to a blood or breath test are considered aggravating circumstances. Each aggravating circumstance typically results in a minimum 48-hour jail sentence in addition to whatever other DUI penalties are imposed.

As a practical matter, DUI defense attorneys oftentimes are able to negotiate DUI diversion sentences that eliminate these jail requirements.

DUI school (otherwise referred to as alcohol and drug education programs) are required when an individual is convicted of DUI charges. It is supposed to educate participants on the dangers of drinking and driving.

In California, these DUI schools range in length from 12 hours to 30 months, depending on:

1. how many DUIs you have suffered within a ten-year period, and


2. whether your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was particularly high (California considers a .20 an “aggravating” factor that increases the length of the DUI program).

Many argue that DUI school is a waste of time…that true alcoholics need more help than DUI school offers and that even first-time offenders don’t always take the classes seriously. If the instructor realizes that you are under the influence during the class, he/she will excuse you from the program and violate your probation.

If you can live without your driver’s license for a year, then politely refusing to submit to a chemical blood or breath test is a good choice. I say this because the California DMV will automatically suspend your driver’s license for a minimum of one year (more if it’s your second or subsequent DUI arrest) if you refuse to submit to a blood/breath test.

But if you can suffer that consequence because either (1) you can rely on friends/family to drive you, or (2) have a good public transportation system, prosecutors have a difficult time proving refusal cases. Often times the arresting officer can’t articulate exactly why he/she believed you were DUI. And even when he/she can, a good drunk driving defense lawyer can usually challenge those observations.

If you can’t give up your driving privilege, then take a test…but only at the station, not a hand-held test in the field. And opt for the breath test, as it’s much easier to effectively dispute the accuracy of breath test results over blood test results.

Hope this helps!

When you are arrested, the cop takes your driver’s license and replaces it with a pink paper. This pink paper acts as a temporary driver’s license, valid for 30 days beyond your arrest. Your driver’s license will automatically be suspended at that time if you don’t request a California DMV DUI hearing.

You only have ten days from the date of your drunk driving arrest to request this hearing. If you contact the DMV within this timeframe, your suspension will be postponed until your hearing. Typically your California DUI defense attorney will represent you at this hearing to explain to the DMV hearing officer why you were falsely arrested for DUI…and therefore should have your driving privilege reinstated.

The Los Angeles Police Department will operate a DUI checkpoint on Saturday, January 23rd between 6:00pm and 1:00am on Manchester Avenue between Hoover and Figueroa Streets.

The Placentia Police Department will conduct a sobriety checkpoint on Saturday, January 23rd from 6:00pm until 1:00am. Placentia P.D. have announced that they will arrest drivers who are DUI and that unlicensed drivers’ cars will be impounded for 30 days.

The court got around that issue by requiring that California DUI checkpoints must adhere to certain guidelines in order to be legally valid. One of the guidelines that regulate these California DUI checkpoints is that their location be publicly advertised.

Why then are the police so upset that people are “tweeting” and “texting” each other to spread the word about a checkpoint’s location? Public awareness is, after all, important in “deterring” DUIs…

Teens from California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico frequent these Mexican cities to party, drink, and then drive home. If caught driving, these underage drinkers face a variety of penalties.

Officers discovered Officer John Quigg (a 24-year veteran with the Pennsylvania Police Department) slumped over and unresponsive after he crashed his car into a pole last month. He was off-duty at the time and driving his personal car. Quigg was placed on administrative leave following the accident.

Quigg’s attorney made a statement that Quigg was very stressed, “dealing with the senseless loss of lives and limbs in a recent rash of fatal crashes”. While I can imagine that he could absolutely feel that way, becoming part of the problem is hardly the answer. And even more disturbing is the fact that his personal stress is supposed to draw sympathy for someone who clearly knew first-hand how destructive his behavior could be. I would love to know how many DUI suspects he released instead of arrested based on their stress levels…as a Los Angeles DUI defense attorney I can guess the answer is pretty close to none…shameless, isn’t it?

And the answer is no…at least not according to Penal Code 647(f) California’s “drunk in public” law. This is because Penal Code 647(f) California’s “drunk in public” law prohibits

1. being intoxicated to the point that you are a safety risk to yourself or others, or


2. being so intoxicated that you obstruct or prevent others from using public areas.

As long as you aren’t so impaired that you meet either of the above criteria, being “drunk in public” is not a criminal offense in California. If it were, the police would be inundated with arrests at nightclubs, bars, sporting events, concerts, and any other venue where alcohol is commonly served.

So the answer to the question is that even though Mariah was publicly drunk, she was not guilty of being drunk in public.