DUIDocument Actions
California DUI Library
California DUI News, Articles and Laws.
Appeals Courts Rules Vehicle Seizure Not Required in California DUI Cases
Ruling stems from suit against highway patrol officers after a car of driver arrested for DUI is released.
The Third District Court of Appeals of California ruled that police are not required to seize and hold a vehicle of a motorist accused (but not convicted) of driving under the influence or driving while having a suspended license.
See the Third District Court of Appeals of California's Ruling
The decision by the three judge panel involves a case filed against two California Highway Patrol officers. The CHP officers arrested Scott St. Pierre for California DUI and driving with a suspended license, after a minor traffic accident. Later in the day, police released St. Pierre and allowed his mother to retrieve his impounded car. Hours later St. Pierre was involved in an accident that killed Jerry Walker. Relatives of Walker sued the California Highway Patrol, saying that the CHP officer’s failure to keep St. Pierre’s seized vehicle resulted in a wrongful death. A trial court agreed that when a vehicle is seized during a suspended license case, the law says it must be impounded for thirty days.
The Appeals Court found the trial court had technically misread the law. The Appeals judges went on to say that their interpretation follows the legislative intent of the law. They pointed out that the state of California would need the space to store one million vehicles if every motorist driving without a license was apprehended and their vehicles impounded for thirty days.
The Court also ordered the dismissal of the suit filed against the CHP officers.
Arrested for a DUI in California? You will need to hire a California DUI lawyer to help you fight your drunk driving charge and to save your driver's license.
Grant to Help Fight California DUI in Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office gets money from state to target drunk driving in northern California county.
The Contra Costa Sheriff's Office has received a state grant to fund efforts to catch drivers suspected of driving under the influence in California.
A $662,000 grant will be distributed over a three year period to help fund the county's 'Avoid The 25' program, which targets drunk drivers through increased enforcement activities. The program name comes from the combined California DUI effort of the county's 25 law enforcement agencies. Its efforts include roaming DUI patrols and sobriety checkpoints. The grant will also pay for a public awareness campaign about the consequences and dangers of drunk driving in California.
A separate grant of $620,115 was given to the Contra Costa County Probation Department to fund programs targeting felony California DUI offenders. According to county statistics, law enforcement agencies arrested more than 600 motorists for DUI offenses in December 2007 alone.
If you have arrested for DUI in Contra Costa County, California you will need to hire a DUI lawyer in Contra Costa.
Court Rules on Use of Unmarked Police Vehicles After California DUI
Appeals court weakens state ban on unmarked cars following case of drunk driving in California.
The California Court of Appeals for the Third District recently made a ruling in a drunk driving case that will have an impact on an 85-year old ban against unmarked police cars in the state. The ban was initially implemented to eliminate clandestine speed traps, and the court decision supports traffic stops for offenses other than speeding.
A county sheriff’s deputy patrolling in an unmarked police car became suspicious of a vehicle driven slowly by Paul Dyer. After following Dyer and claiming his Jeep Cherokee crossed highway lines several times, a traffic stop was initiated. The officer suspected driving under the influence in California and had a second deputy arrive on the scene with a marked squad car. Though a breath test revealed a blood alcohol content below the legal limit for intoxication, the officer deemed the test ‘inconclusive’ and had Dyer arrested anyway.
A trial court dismissed the California DUI and ordered the return of the defendant’s driver’s license. The Department of Motor Vehicles appealed that decision.
California has outlawed unmarked police cars since 1923, in a direct effort to eliminate speed traps designed to supplement local revenues through exorbitant fines. The statute requires distinctively marked law enforcement vehicles.
The three-judge Appeals Court ruled that the officer with the unmarked vehicle in the Dyer case only played a supervisory role, and the actual arrest was made by the second officer. In addition, the court declined to apply the speed trap law to other traffic offenses, like drunk driving in California. The court ordered a new trial to determine if Dyer was legally intoxicated at the time of his DUI arrest.
California DUI Arrests Down Over Memorial Day Weekend
CHP reports decline in cases of drunk driving in California.
A spokesperson for the California Highway Patrol has indicated that arrests over the Memorial Day Weekend for driving under the influence in California were lower than last year.
Across the state, CHP officers charged 1,301 motorists with drunk driving in California. Last year the total was 1,449. Arrests for DUI in Los Angeles County were down, while Sacramento DUI and San Francisco DUI incidents were higher.
It was speculated that the figures were influenced by an increased awareness of the dangers of driving while intoxicated and reduced driving due to high gas prices. CHP says that the Memorial Day Weekend traditionally is not the biggest holiday for drinking and driving. July 4th is reportedly worse, and New Year’s Eve has the highest number of arrests for California drunk driving.
The statistics reflect California DUI arrests made between 6:00 pm Friday and 6 am Monday.
State Legislators Consider California DUI Bill
Senate measure would lower blood alcohol content for mandatory ignition interlock device.
The Senate Public Safety Committee of the California legislature is debating a bill that would lower the level of intoxication leading to an ignition interlock device. The current .20% blood alcohol content would be lowered to .16%. Motorists convicted of drinking and driving in California with the new BAC would be required to install interlock devices in every vehicle available to them. The devices would have to remain in the vehicles for 1-3 years, depending on the circumstances of the DUI. Motorists with previous arrests for driving under the influence in California or those arrested for driving with a suspended license would receive a longer sentence.
The bill states that the return of a motorist’s driver’s license would be contingent upon the documented installation of an ignition interlock device.
If you have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence in California you will need to hire a qualified California DUI attorney.
Labor Day DUI Arrests Up in Bay Area
Bay Area sees increase in drunk driving arrests over 2007 Labor Day Holiday.
Santa Clara County law enforcement agencies recorded a notable increase in California DUI arrests over the 2007 Labor Day Holiday. California Highway Patrol Officer Mike Wright said, “one of the reasons arrests are going up is that law enforcement is able to throw in more resources.”
The increased patrol presence in the Bay Area yielded more DUI arrests in the first three days of the holiday than the entire holiday arrest total for 2006.
If you have been arrested for drunk driving you will need a California DUI Lawyer.
License Suspension Refusal Goes Before CA Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court will use a San Mateo County case to decide whether a suspected drunken driver can have her license suspended for refusing to be tested for alcohol even if police never saw her driving.
All seven justices voted Wednesday to review Terry Troppman's appeal of her one-year license suspension. The court will hold a hearing at a future date Troppman was spotted by a Belmont police officer slumped in the driver's seat of a parked van in January 2003. She failed field sobriety tests and admitted she had been drinking from a wine bottle found in the van, but testified later that she had pulled over and parked before starting to drink. She was unable to complete a breath test and refused to take a blood test, according to court records.
Under California law, anyone who drives a car implicitly agrees to submit to a test for alcohol or face a license suspension. In upholding Troppman's suspension by the Department of Motor Vehicles, a state Court of Appeal panel in San Francisco ruled in February that the requirement covers any case in which police reasonably suspect the person had been driving while drunk.
To go further and require proof that the person had actually been driving "would undermine the policy goals of encouraging cooperation in testing and deterring of drunk driving,'' said Justice William McGuiness.
But Troppman's lawyer, John Halley, said in a Supreme Court appeal that implicit in the law is a requirement that authorities show proof of actual driving, because "it is the act of driving from which consent (to be tested) is implied.'' The case is Troppman vs. Gourley, S13249.
DRUNK DRIVING - LICENSE SUSPENSION - NO EVIDENCE OF DRIVING REQUIRED
Troppman v. Gourley (2005) Cal.App.4th , 05 C.D.O.S. 1190 First Dist., 2/8/05, A105287
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT - DIVISION THREE (PDF Download)
License of suspected drunk driver may be suspended or revoked for refusal to submit to chemical test even in absence of finding that person was actually driving a car at the time of the offense. Follows its prior decision in Rice v. Pierce (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1460, and declines to follow Jackson v. Pierce (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 964 (from the Fifth).
Use Note: the driver in this case was slumped over the wheel of a stopped car, and was the only occupant. I think the result would be different if a drunken licensee was being driven home by a designated driver. Here the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe licensee had been driving.
By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, May 20, 2005
Are you in need of a California DUI Attorney?
Ads for Latinos Attacked
Alcohol Ads for Latinos Attacked: Rules Sought Like Those for Cigarettes
Promoting liquor in Latino neighborhoods is like pouring gasoline on smoldering embers, a coalition of health and community groups said Thursday, as it called for marketing standards similar to those for tobacco.
Aggressive, multimillion-dollar alcohol advertising campaigns geared toward Latinos exacerbates a community already disproportionately plagued by social ails, said Edwardo Hernandez, author of a report presented by CalPartners Coalition.
"A substantial number of Latinos are dying because of substantial alcohol use," said Hernandez.
At stake is one of the nation's fastest growing populations: Latino youths, who will have a dramatic effect on public health, schools and criminal justice, he said. Advertising seems to soak in at an early, vulnerable age, said Hernandez, noting a Corona beer campaign that insists it is the "Drinko for Cinco."
The group launched its report to counter Cinco de Mayo celebrations around the state where, at some, drunken brawls have eclipsed cultural significance.
Attention from public health leaders, legislators and the industry would create more responsible marketing and sales in the way that public outrage curbed cigarette advertising in recent years, the coalition contends.
"We have a lot to learn from our friends in the tobacco industry," said Mark Capitolo, spokesman for the coalition.
Industry giant Anheuser-Busch Co. markets to influence adults' brand choice, said spokesman Louis Deleon in a written statement. The ads are as diverse as the marketplace, he said.
"To suggest that people of a certain ethnic origin should be protected from certain types of advertising is elitist, condescending and insulting." The company works with Latino-owned advertising agencies to develop culturally sensitive campaigns, he said.
Yet the trend among Latinos runs counter to drinking habits among other ethnic groups, burdening Latinos with a greater share of alcohol-related health problems, Hernandez said.
Between 1984 to 1995, heavy drinking dropped from 20 percent to 12 percent among whites, but edged up among Latinos from 17 percent to 18 percent during the same time, according to a Public Health Institute study.
Specifically, four out of 10 Mexican Americans with alcohol-related problems, like liver disease, die before 50, but only three out of 10 whites with alcohol problems die that young, according to a study published in Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science.
Latinos must examine traditional drinking habits, some imported from homelands, Hernandez conceded, such as heavy drinking tied to religious ceremonies. And though Latinos drink less frequently than other ethnic groups, when they do they drink more, said Hernandez, citing several government studies.
"They may not be aware that bringing home a six-pack is part of the problem," Capitolo said.
But changing the flow of liquor would be like swimming upstream if marketing strategies are not changed, said Hernandez.
Liquor companies do invest in their markets, offering scholarships and financial support of community events, he said. But organizations should re-consider donations linked to sales of the product, coalition members said.
Centro Guadalupe in Sacramento, a coalition member and Cinco de Mayo fete sponsor, turned down liquor industry money with few sacrifices, said center director Sylvia Villalobos. "Somehow, we got taken care of OK."
By M.E. Enkoji Bee Staff Writer
(Published March 27, 1998)
Are you in need of a California DUI Attorney?
California Laws: High Fines for No Insurance
If you are caught with a DUI and no insurance, you need a California DUI Attorney.
Got Insurance? Now Prove It - Drivers Without Coverage Face Hefty Fines
By Arthur M. Louis, Chronicle Staff Writer
Although California law requires all motorists to insure their cars, an estimated 5.5 million of the 21 million vehicles registered in the state are uninsured.
But starting this year, the law got new teeth. The Legislature passed a bill requiring motorists to produce proof of insurance before the Department of Motor Vehicles will renew their registrations.
The new legislation also requires motorists to display proof of insurance when they are stopped by police officers for traffic violations. Drivers who can't do so may have to pay fines ranging from $1,350 to as high as $5,400 for repeat offenders.
The law -- which expires at the end of 1999 unless renewed by the Legislature -- was spearheaded by former Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, a Burlingame Democrat, whose husband was killed three years ago in a collision with an uninsured driver.
As a result of the law, many previously uninsured motorists are rushing to find insurance.
``We are being inundated with applications,'' remarks Peter Gorman, associate vice president of the Alliance of American Insurers, which represents 300 property-and-casualty companies.
But many other motorists -- a lot of them low-income people who claim that the cost of insurance is too burdensome -- continue to evade the law.
Some are buying counterfeit insurance cards for around $50 apiece from unscrupulous entrepreneurs, or are stealing registration stickers from other cars so they won't have to deal with the DMV.
Others get genuine insurance cards by paying the first month's premium, then cancel their policies, says Bill Sirola, a spokesman for State Farm, California's largest auto insurer.
Speier says the loophole described by Sirola crept into the law because of heavy pressure from the insurance com- panies themselves.
Her bill originally required insurance companies to notify the DMV electronically whenever an auto-insurance customer canceled coverage.
"But the insurance companies cried and complained about the `extraordinary cost,' so I took that out of the bill to keep it moving,'' Speier says.
Speier notes, however, that people who present false proof of insurance are committing a misdemeanor, punishable by suspension of their driver's license for a year.
Even some judges and police officers are flouting the new regulations.
Judges who consider the punishment too severe are letting violators off the hook, or are imposing fines and penalties well below the $1,350 minimum. And various local police forces aren't bothering to ask motorists for proof of insurance -- although the California Highway Patrol is routinely making such requests.
The new law took a lot of people by surprise, and even those who want to comply may not know how to go about it.
Here is how the law works.
When motorists renew their registration each year, they must send the DMV a photocopy of the proof-of-insurance card provided by their insurer. Or, they can display the card itself if they renew at a DMV office.
DMV spokesman Evan Nosoff said the agency prefers to have all renewals handled by mail. It is a routine transaction, he notes, and the DMV branches are crowded enough with other business.
Your insurance must meet certain legal minimums.
You must have per-accident coverage of at least $15,000 for injury to one person, $30,000 for all injuries combined and $5,000 for property damage.
As an alternative, you can demonstrate that you have enough financial resources to self-insure. This requires bonded proof that you have set aside $35,000 in cash to cover any liabilities.
Theft and collision insurance and comprehensive coverage are not required.
If you are stopped by a police officer and asked for proof of insurance, you will get a ticket if you can't produce it at that time.
However, you can have the ticket nullified by showing proof of insurance in court. You still will be assessed a $10 fee for paperwork.
Judges can impound the vehicles of frequent, flagrant violators. There is no appeal from such a decision. The driver can never get the car back, although the lender that financed the car can.
If you provide false evidence of insurance coverage and your driver's license is suspended, the suspension won't be lifted until you demonstrate genuine proof of insurance.
Filed in California DUI | Insurance / SR-22 | Permalink | Comments (0)
California Drivers Required to Use Hands Free Devices
California Requires Drivers to Use Hands Free Devices While Talking on a Mobile Phone Key proponent for the bill included Verizon Wireless the nation largest wireless communications provider.
September 15, 2006
By Sandy Meyer Copyright Sandy Meyer
Sacramento, California - California Governor Schwarzenegger has signed SB 1613 by Sen. Joseph Simitian (D-Palo Alto) that would prohibit the use of a cell phone in a moving vehicle unless the driver is using a hands free device.
SB 1613 will:
- Prohibit the use of cell phones by drivers unless the driver is using a hands-free device starting July 1, 2008.
- Allow drivers of commercial vehicles to use push-to-talk phones until July 1, 2011.
- Allow drivers to make emergency phone calls without using a hands-free device.
- Allow drivers of emergency response vehicles to use cell phone without a hands-free device.
- Prescribes that a conviction is punishable by a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offenses.
Lobbyists for the bill included Verizon Wireless, the nation largest wireless communications provider, law enforcement agencies and local government agencies. All are projected to make a lot of money from the passage of this bill.
Simitian and Verizon had attempted to get a bill on the use of hand held cellular phones passed in 2003. They did not succeed.
Verizon also sells wireless phones with voice-activated dialing and two-way speakerphone capabilities. The 2000 merger of Verizon, Bell Atlantic and GTE created Verizon Communications.
Veriizon has also been active in lobbying for the enactment of similar legislation in other states. States where Verizon lobbied in that have enacted laws to require the use of hands free cell phone devices include Illinois and Massachusetts in 2000, New York ($100. fine) in 2001, Washington, D.C. and New Jersey in 2004, Connecticut in 2005.
In 2002 -- Verizon Wireless began a partnership with the Georgia State Patrol's Safety Education Division to promote safer and more responsible driving. The Atlanta Journal Constition reported that despite a lack of evidence that hand-held phones are more dangerous on the road than hands-free devices, or other distractions, the DeKalb County, Georgia, enacted a fine of up to $500 for drivers who cause a wreck while talking on cell phones.
The county enacted the new law despite a lack of evidence that hand-held phones are more dangerous on the road than hands-free devices, or other distractions, such as eating.
See law: http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/3128
Source: http://www.ahrc.com
Do you need a California DUI Attorney?
In the News
