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.

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.

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.

Do you need a California DUI Lawyer?

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.

Do you need a California DUI Lawyer?

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.

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.

Taking sides is a dispute it said had split California's appellate courts for more than a decade, Div. Three on Tuesday took issue with two rulings by the Fifth District Jackson v. Pierce (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 964 and Medina v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 744.

Presiding Justice William R. McGuiness said the better argument was that made by the DMV in support of its suspension of Terry Troppman's license. Following the Fifth District's 1988 decision in Rice v. Pierce, 203 Cal.App.3d 1460, and the Sixth District's ruling in Machado v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1687, McGuiness concluded that proof of actual driving is not required to support a license suspension or revocation in chemical refusal cases under Vehicle Code Sec. 13353.

Slumped in Van

A police officer woke Troppman at 10:45 p.m. on a Thursday evening in January of 2003 after finding her slumped over in the driver's seat of a parked van. She was the only occupant, and the officer said he smelled alcohol and thought she appeared inebriated.

He arrested her after she failed field sobriety tests. At the police station she twice attempted to take a breath test without success, and then refused further testing.

At the administrative hearing Troppman conceded she was an alcoholic and had been drinking, but testified she had parked before she consumed quite a few glasses of wine and did not drive afterward.

The hearing officer concluded the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe Troppman was driving drunk, but did not make a finding that she operated the van after drinking. A San Mateo Superior Court judge, relying on the Fifth District cases, ordered the resulting suspension set aside.

McGuiness noted the Troppman never challenged the lawfulness of her arrest. Hence, he reasoned, the case did not present the question of to what extent state high court case law requiring an officer to observe vehicular movement prior to making a drunk driving arrest was abrogated by subsequent legislation permitting arrests without such an observation where there is a risk that evidence may be destroyed by the passage of time.

Vehicle Code Mandates

The presiding justice pointed out that Sec. 13353 specifically requires hearing officers to review whether the officer making the arrest had reasonable cause to believe the arrestee was driving while under the influence, and to determine whether the arrestee was advised of the consequences of refusing to be tested.

McGuiness declared:

We agree with the reasoning of Rice and Machado. It is apparent the Legislature enacted section 13353 to give police officers a tool to obtain chemical testing from drunk driving suspects without having to resort to physical compulsion. Although the Legislature expressly conditioned the use of section 13353 upon a lawful arrest for driving under the influence and upon the officer's reasonable belief that the arrestee was so driving, nowhere does the statute make suspension of the arrestee's license conditional upon proof that he or she was actually driving at the time of the alleged offense. While the distinction between proof necessary to administer a chemical test and proof necessary to suspend a person's driver's license may hold some rhetorical appeal, we find no support for such a distinction in the language of the statutes. If the Legislature wished to make suspension of a person's license under section 13353 conditional upon a finding that the person was actually driving at the time of the alleged offense, it could have easily added this subject to the required findings enumerated in the statute.

He continued:

Instead, under the language of section 13353, it is sufficient that the arresting officer has reasonable cause to believe the person had been driving' while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Justices Carol Corrigan and Stuart Pollak concurred, but Pollak wrote separately to argue that it was unnecessary for the court to derive authority for the license suspension from the doctrine of implied consent.

Pollak wrote:

There is no constitutional or other impediment to the Legislature authorizing the forfeiture of a driver's license if the person, lawfully arrested for suspected drunken driving and properly warned of the consequences..., refuses to submit to a chemical test of intoxication.

Troppman's license suspension was valid, Pollak explained, not because she impliedly consented to submit to a chemical test under the circumstances, but because the validity and enforceability of section 13353 does not require such consent on her part.

The case is Troppman v. Gourley, 05 S.O.S. 761.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

By DAVID WATSON, Staff Writer

Copyright 2005, Metropolitan News Company

Are you in need of a California DUI Attorney?

He likes to joke that the chief's job he's held for 20 years has "beaten me down since I was 6-foot-4 and weighed 220 pounds."

Palmer, 57, has been tossing that line around a lot in recent days, since he announced he's retiring from the department he has served since 1963, when he was hired as a dispatcher after his discharge from the Army's Military Police.

He's best known in California law enforcement circles as the chief who in the late 1980s initiated the state's first sobriety checkpoint system to combat drunk driving. He set it up in such a way that it withstood a constitutional challenge by civil liberties groups and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Palmer recalls, however, that the politicking behind the scenes was intense over whether Burlingame or the CHP should be the first department to go forward with such a program.

"Critics thought we were a podunk police department that was going to screw it up for everybody, but we did our homework," boasts the chief.

Palmer, member of a marksman's team in his Army days, fired his police revolver only once in the line of duty. He shot a fleeing felon in the leg who, in one of those split-second decisions cops are often called on to make, Palmer mistakenly had thought was about to draw a gun on him.

The man he shot, an ex-con who had a reputation for carrying a weapon, was happy that Palmer had a marksman's eye. "He later thanked me for not killing him," the chief recalls.

Palmer, popular both with police colleagues and news reporters, prides himself on a long-standing policy of getting out accurate and truthful information to the media and the public.

But there was one time, he confesses, that he flat-out lied to the press and he makes no apologies, because he believed a young kidnap victim's life was at stake. The lie came only a few months after Palmer was named chief, during tense negotiations with the kidnapers of Niels Legallet, the 11-year-old scion of a wealthy pioneer California family. Palmer told the press there had been no phone contact with the kidnapers. "The kidnapers threatened to send the boy's fingers back to us if I revealed we talked to them."

Things turned out OK when Palmer's newly created SWAT team rescued the youngster from a motel and arrested his captors. The amiable, gregarious chief was amused by a local newspaper's article on his impending retirement in which it was noted that over the span of his career law enforcement, culture had largely switched from donuts to bagels and cappuccino. "Isn't that something to be remembered for?" he laughs.

But the chief, who will be honored by the city at a June 13 retirement party, says the most significant change in police work since he started has been technological. For one thing, police have progressed from handwritten reports -- sometimes a challenge to read -- to laptop computers.

Palmer recalls that when Burlingame PD bought its first video camera 25 years ago, a two-way mirror was installed in a tiny closet next to the interrogation room.

One day, as then-Detective Palmer scrunched inside the closet taping an interview through the mirror, the detective questioning the suspect suddenly leaned back in his office chair "and just kept going until he hit the floor on his butt."

The interrogation collapsed as well, when the suspect heard Palmer laughing uproariously inside the closet.

-- Palmer's retirement party is set for 6 p.m. June 13 at Burlingame's Hyatt Regency Hotel. Tickets are $42 per person. Call 692-8440.

Friday, May 23, 1997 Page P1, 1997 San Francisco Chronicle

By Bill Workman

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

Smog certificates will be sent by computer from smog check stations straight to the Department of Motor Vehicles. And in another high-tech twist, mobile smog sensors on the roadside will test cars as they roll by and immediately report them to the state.

The program, dubbed "Smog Check II,'' is state officials' answer to changes mandated by the 1990 federal Clean Air Act. The new laws are appearing in bits and pieces -- some parts of the program require expensive new smog check stations and equipment -- but should be fully in place by 1998.

The aim is to clear California's notoriously hazy air, especially in smog-choked areas such as Sacramento and Los Angeles. The number of cars failing smog tests, about 18 percent of all vehicles tested in 1994-95, is expected to go up because of more sensitive testing equipment.

The big target is the smog- belching cars the state deems "gross polluters.'' About 10 to 15 percent of cars and trucks cause about half the state's smog problem. The state wants those off the road, so much so that officials may start offering to buy cars that cannot pass a smog test.

"This program is serious about getting high-polluting vehicles repaired,'' said Maria Chacon Kniestedt, spokeswoman for Smog Check II. "Cars that used to be out on the road year after year causing big pollution problems will not be able to do that anymore.''

The new smog laws are nothing if not complicated. Some of the new laws are in effect, while others are just around the corner:

-- As of last month, all California smog certificates are issued electronically. Cars and trucks to be tested are first identified by the DMV computer, and if the vehicle passes, the results are sent straight to the DMV. The procedure has required garages that conduct smog checks to spend about $2,500 to update each smog machine and adds about 10 minutes to the length of the test.

-- Smog tests will vary widely by area. Drivers in many rural regions and most parts of the Bay Area, where air pollution is less severe, will still have their cars tested at any garage offering the service. The test still measures tailpipe gases while the car is standing still, although some emission limits have changed for some cars. The new test also checks for oxides of nitrogen, a pollutant the state has never screened for before.

In very smoggy areas, such as Vacaville, Fresno and San Diego, 15 percent of vehicles will have to be checked at special new "test-only'' smog centers. And all cars, whether checked at a garage or a test-only center, will have to be tested on a treadmill-like machine called a dynamometer. Sacramento already has the new system, and the rest of the Central Valley is next, scheduled for next spring.

-- Waivers for problem cars will be much harder to get, and drivers will have to go to special test or referee centers to get them. Owners will have to spend a minimum of $450 to bring their cars into compliance before applying for a waiver, and waivers will be issued only once every four years. Drivers who cannot afford the repair bill can apply for a one-time, one-year extension.

SLOW CHANGES, BIG REACTIONS

The changes are being phased in gradually, but they already have some drivers up in arms.

Owners of older cars worry that the new tests are too restrictive for classic roadsters, and they are especially concerned about a new part of the smog test that requires revving the engines of cars manufactured before 1981 to test emissions. State officials counter that the new laws are not part of any campaign to force someone's classic Ford Mustang off the road.

Cars manufactured before 1966 do not have to have smog checks, and older cars that must be tested do not have to meet the same standards as newer vehicles. Many mechanics say good maintenance, not age, is the key to passing the test.

Still, similar programs in other states have sparked grassroots campaigns to repeal the laws.

"I'm sorry to hear California will have something like this,'' said Greg Bell, spokesman for the Coalition to Repeal Ohio E-Check, a group fighting a similar program and picketing smog check stations in Ohio. "It is too restrictive, and it just doesn't work.''

Even if California's new program is only half in place, some drivers are already noticing -- and sometimes fuming about -- parts of Smog Check II already in effect.

At Stauder Chevron in Oakland, a garage that does about 10 to 15 smog checks a day, co-owner Mike Stauder has already seen some irate customers.

"People who fail the test by a big margin can have their car fixed here, but then they have to go get retested at the referee center, and there can be a big backlog,'' Stauder said. "Some customers are not too happy about it.''

Just trying to get in touch with the referee centers indicated that customers may indeed have to wait for tests -- 15 phone calls over three days yielded only a busy signal each time.

At San Francisco Auto Repair Center, owner Jerry Lewis said the new laws have just about everyone confused. "I get calls from customers wondering about the law. I get calls from other garages,'' he said. "To many people, the rules seem very vague right now.''

In the middle of all the crossed signals, however, the drivers who seem the most unhappy are those who don't want to spend the money to fix their smoky road machines, Lewis said.

"We get a certain number of people who are very upset,'' said Lewis. "I tell them to go live in L.A. and see what it's like.''

Some watching the new tests in action say most drivers have nothing to worry about. At the California State Automobile Association office in Sacramento, senior auto service specialist Bob Kelleher has been checking with garages that administer the new tests.

MOSTLY POSITIVE BUZZ

"There are customers who don't like it, but overall what I've heard has been pretty positive,'' said Kelleher. "About 90 percent of the vehicles that failed the test the first time passed it after being repaired.''

The way to pass the new smog check, state officials and mechanics say, is to keep your car well- maintained. Tampering with any part of a vehicle's emission system is asking for trouble, because such changes will mean a trip to a special test or referee center when smog check time rolls around.

"We get people who come in here who drive around with their engines two to three quarts low on oil,'' said Mike Stauder at Stauder Chevron. "Cars are just not kept up like they used to be.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW SMOG RULES FOR CALIFORNIA

Under California's complicated new Smog Check II program. how your car or truck will be testred depends a lot on where you live. Parts of the state with the dirtiest air -- mostly the Sacramento, Central Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego areas -- will face the toughest tests on new equipment. For other parts of the state, including most of the Bay Area, there are also strict new rules and standards.

HOW REMOTE SMOG SENSING WORKS

Remote smog sensors are appearing along California roadsides to measure emissions from cars as they drive by. The entire process takes about three seconds.

(1) An infrared beam shot across the highway picks up the contents of a car's exhaust. A calibrator and computer on the other side of the road screen and measure the emissions.

(2) At the same time, a camera snaps a pictire of the vehicle's license plate. The state uses that in information to find and notify the vehicle's owner if emissions are too high.

SMOG TESTS DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU LIVE

HOW OFTEN VEHICLES ARE TESTED

Toughest testing (a) Once every two years, unless vehicle is a high polluter, and when vehicle change owners.

Less strict Once every two years, unless vehicle is a high polluter, and when vehicle changes owners.

Least strict Only when vehicle changes owners.

HOW VEHICLE IS TESTED

Toughest testing (a) 15 percent of all vehicles tested at new smog centers, others tested at private garages. All tested on treadmills. Test results sent by computer to DMV.

Less strict All tested at private garages, no treadmill. Test result sent by computer to DMV.

Least strict All tested at private garages, no treadmill. Test results sent by computer to DMV.

IF VEHICLE FAILS

Toughest testing (a) High polluters must be repaired and retested at new smog centers. Less severe polluters must be repaired and retested at either private garages or smog centers.

Less strict High polluters must be repaired and retested at special referee centers. Less severe polluters must be repaired and retested at private garages.

Least strict Allvehicles must be repaired and retested at private garages.

REPAIR COST WAIVERS (b)

Toughest testing (a) Vehicle owner must spend at least $450 on smog-relatred repairs before getting a waiver if vehicle fails test.

Less strict Vehicle owner must spend at least $450 on smog-related repairs before getting a waiver if vehicle fails test.

Least strict N/A

Toughest testing (a) If you cannot afford needed smog repairs, you may apply for a one-time, one-year extension.

Less strict If you cannot afford needed smog repairs, you may apply for a one-time, one-year extension.

Least strict N/A

(a) The new program for more polluted areas will only take effect as Smog Check II becomes fully operational in those areas. Currently, Sacramento is the only area where the program is completely in place. The Central Valley will follow next spring. (b) Waivers are not avaiable for vehicles that are changing ownership or are being registered in California for the first time.

PAGE ONE -- Stricter Smog Rules For Cars
State Zeroes in on Most-Polluted Areas

April Lynch, Chronicle Staff Writer

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

A man wearing a scraggly beard and a green St. Patrick's Day necklace has passed out at the wheel of his white Econoline van. Encircled by a telltale cloud of beer stench, his head rises and falls with unconscious breathing.

"I can't let you drive!" Panzica continues.

The bearded man awakens, but only enough to slightly cock his head, then pin his accelerator. The engine roar stops all conversation in a long line waiting to enter the packed Seal Beach bar around the corner.

Luckily, the van is in park.

Panzica, 39, is the founder of Scooter Patrol, a nonprofit Long Beach group saving lives (as well as DUI arrests) by ferrying inebriated bar patrons home in their own cars. Folding electric scooters are placed in trunks or truck beds; volunteers ride them to their next inebriated client.

Normally, Panzica demands car keys from any obviously impaired drivers he encounters along the way. If they resist, he grabs the keys and forcibly drives them home.

"When somebody can't stand or walk, they can hardly drive a vehicle," Panzica said earlier. "Now they're putting me and my friends and family at risk, and I'm not gonna have that."

But fate has hurled Panzica a curveball with the bearded man: His van has no key. It's configured for a paraplegic. A joystick substitutes for the steering wheel, a series of unrecognizable buttons for all the familiar pedals and knobs.

Not only could Panzica never drive this vehicle, he can't cut the engine.

"You've got to shut this thing off!" Panzica shouts. "I'm going to call the police!"

After five minutes, the bearded man obeys and hydraulically lowers himself to the sidewalk. Panzica introduces himself, in a surprisingly polite tone, then wheels him to a nearby coffee shop.

"I'll wait here for three hours," the man slurs. "I won't drive, I promise."

During the week, Scooter Patrol -- which posts fliers in popular bars around Long Beach, Sunset Beach, Huntington Beach and Seal Beach -- responds to three to six calls per night, either from worried drivers or bartenders.

On weekends, the frequency is eight to 20, and on this night that number doubles.

St. Patrick's Day is the second drunkest night after New Year's Eve.

"The beauty of the whole thing is you have your vehicle in your front yard tomorrow morning," says tonight's first official client, who asks to be referred to only as Mike.

He is not visibly impaired but says he downed nine drinks over the previous three hours at a Seal Beach pub called Dave's Other Place.

"If I were to call a cab, I'd have to figure out a way to get down here tomorrow morning, get my truck and then be at work on time," he continues, as his Chevy Silverado is driven the 25 minutes back to Huntington Beach for him.

"I've got Anthony on my speed dial," Mike says. (This is his fifth time using Scooter Patrol.)

Normally, Panzica plops his Goped into the back of Mike's pickup.

But Panzica and a journalist can't fit on a one-person scooter. So tonight we're tailed by our ride back, a van driven by a former client and current Scooter Patrol volunteer. (His van features passenger amenities such as water, breath mints and air-sickness bags.)

Panzica is a Chicago-born Army brat whose last steady job was working corporate events as a James Dean impersonator in the '90s.

The resemblance is still uncanny, which begs the question: Have people ever awakened to freak out at the sight of James Dean driving their car?

Panzica laughs. "He wasn't too good of a driver, was he?" he responds.

Scooter Patrol employs Panzica and four other trained drivers. They're all volunteers, but do OK on tips. (Mike will hand Panzica $40 tonight, more than cab fare plus gratuity.)

"I plan on making a good living doing this eventually," Panzica says. "But it has to be built up and proven first."

Panzica interrupts to field a request from a new client on his never-silent cell phone.

"Hang tight for another half hour," he tells Stacy, who says she's waiting in front of O'Malley's in Seal Beach, wearing a tall green hat. The next call is a woman requesting transportation from one bar to another.

"We're really not solving any problems that way," Panzica explains to the caller. "We only want to get you home, so that you don't hurt yourself or someone else."

In 1989 Panzica received his own DUI conviction, courtesy of the Santa Monica Police Department.

"I was out partying one night and I didn't realize how much I imbibed," he says. "It was one of the worst experiences of my life."

He estimates the cost in fines and insurance at about $6,000. (Since then, it's doubled -- and that's not counting any criminal charges, civil judgments and lifelong guilt for possibly killing or maiming others.)

Panzica dreamed up Scooter Patrol three years ago to help others avoid his fate -- or a worse one. The idea came during a conversation with a friend on Main Street in Seal Beach, Southern California's Times Square of alcohol consumption. (A one-mile stretch contains 21 always-busy drinking establishments.)

"We tried to come up with a solution to how you get the guy's car home with him," Panzica says. "We talked about a tow truck or a skateboard, folding bicycles. And we finally hit on scooters that fold up."

It was an original idea -- until Panzica discovered that one UK anti-drunk-driving organization had invented it two years earlier.

"But they charge for their service," he says.

Another similar service, the Designated Drivers Association, operated briefly around Santa Monica last year. Drunk motorists were driven home from bars by two volunteers -- one in the driver's car, the second tailing in another.

"But we suspended operations indefinitely," DDA founder Nick Yaya said during a separate interview. He blamed lack of support from the community during New Year's Eve.

"We just couldn't get the message out like we needed to," he said. (Yaya has since gotten in touch with Panzica, and the two have scheduled a meeting to try and combine forces.)

"This is the bridge where I nearly got killed," Panzica says as he nears his first client's house. The memory is only one-month old.

"There was a drunk driver going the wrong way in this lane," Panzica says. "He missed me by about four inches and plowed into the person behind me." (The drunk driver died, Panzica reports; his victim survived with minor injuries.)

You won't find many people to argue how wrong drunk driving is. Yet you also won't find many people who won't take the wheel after only two beers on a Saturday night. Like it or not, that's our culture.

A case such as Mike's or the bearded man's is clear-cut. But what about the drinker who's had significantly less and insists on driving?

"That's a hard one," Panzica says.

Drinkers are never a reliable gauge of how intoxicated they are. Neither are the DMV charts mailed out with registration renewals, which account only for differences in weight.

Accurately predicting blood-alcohol content (BAC) based on number of drinks over time also requires knowledge of when and how much food was last consumed. Knowing a person's individual metabolic rate and body-fat content also is vital. And gender is a factor, with alcohol rushing faster into the bloodstream of females.

Personal breath tests aren't accurate either -- at least as of five years ago, when this reporter tested the Alcolimit DriveSafe model against a police machine.

After two 8-ounce glasses of champagne and a 15-minute wait, the test subject blew a .015 with the personal Alcolimit, but a whopping .07 at the police station.

Besides, drivers can legally be charged with DUI at any BAC level -- if field-sobriety tests suggest they are impaired.

"Nobody can know for sure," says Panzica, whose personal answer is never to drive with a trace of alcohol in him. However, this is not realistic for most party-going Americans.

"After you get popped, you know when you're impaired," says Mike. "I know based upon the education I was forced to receive, issued by the courts."

Scooter Patrol currently operates from Huntington Beach up to Belmont Shore, but Panzica says he hopes to expand as far north as Manhattan Beach.

"There's no set plan yet, but I've received some phone calls and e-mails from South Bay business people and residents who are very interested in having Scooter Patrol in their community."

However, even a Scooter Patrol in every American city wouldn't scratch the surface of the drunk-driving scourge.

Every 33 minutes in the U.S., someone is killed in a drunk-driving crash, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"There's a serious problem there," Panzica says, "and it's not getting adequately addressed by drunk-driving laws."

As if to illustrate the point, the bearded man wheels himself unsteadily out of the coffee shop and back into his van only 15 minutes after promising Panzica he'd take his time sobering up.

Panzica again threatens to summon the cops. This time, he is ignored. As the man starts up his van, Panzica whips out his cell phone. The bearded man isn't even looking. He pulls away, astonishing onlookers.

In two years of performing this service, seven nights a week, Panzica says he's "never dealt with anything like this."

Panzica opts not to place the call to the police.

"When you're trying to help the community, getting people incarcerated can hurt your reputation as somebody known for caring for people," he says. "But, let me tell you, that was a very, very hard decision to make."

Down the street, two unsuspecting boys dart their bicycles out in front of the van. Luckily, they are not hit.

"It's gonna be a long night," Panzica says

By Corey Levitan - Long Beach, CA

Daily Breeze

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

The most interesting finding of the survey, which was conducted by a division of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, is the suggestion that the person being interviewed understands the problem of barreling through a red light but says it's never his fault, says a city psychologist.

"The study suggests that people accurately see why others run red lights -- they're `in a hurry' or `not paying attention,' "said psychologist Stan Lipsitz, "But in terms of their own behavior, they make excuses, they deny responsibility."

The informal random survey was conducted in the summer of people waiting in line at the San Francisco office of the state Department of Motor Vehicles. The San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency said yesterday that while its survey was more casual than scientific, it still found enough material from the 460 people interviewed to suggest that maybe the city should put officers on every intersection in town, 24 hours a day, or at least keep college-educated men out of cars.

Here's what the survey found:

• Twice as many men run red lights as women, although there are nearly as many female drivers as male drivers in San Francisco. But twice as many men "can accurately define running a red light.'' (Entering an intersection on the yellow light is OK, police say. Entering it on a red is not.)
• Most people think they won't get caught running red lights, and so they keep on doing it.
• Few drivers will actually admit they tried to beat the light. Most say they couldn't stop or tried too late to stop.
• More than half of the people who confessed to being chronic red-light runners had a college degree. (Less than 36 percent of San Francisco's population has graduated from college.)

The survey by the medical services agency, the ambulance-running arm of the city health department, is part of a Federal Highway Administration campaign to warn drivers across the country of the seriousness of running red lights. The ambulance agency got a $30,000 federal grant to help with the survey.

In 1995, more than 41,000 people were killed in the United States because of traffic accidents, according to the city health department. More than 20 percent of those crashes were caused by drivers who ignored traffic signals.

For its part in the nationwide campaign, San Francisco is already cracking down on red-light running with the installation last year of three cameras at bad intersections around town.

The cameras -- at Fifth and Howard streets, 19th and Holloway avenues, and Seventh and Mission streets -- automatically take pictures of any car traveling faster than 15 mph that enters an intersection after the light has turned red. The private companies that operate the cameras develop the film and ``zoom in on each frame,'' said city traffic engineer Bond Yee, and then give the Police Department the car's license plate number.

The picture also identifies the driver through the windshield. The police mail the car owner a ticket, Yee said, and if the registered owner wants to challenge the citation, he or she "has to come down to court and tell the judge, `It wasn't me.'"

Yee said there are some loopholes in the system -- "If the picture is not conclusive, or there's glare, or if the front license plate is out of focus, then those are not mailed out." And motorcycles go free -- they have no front plates, and it is nearly impossible for a camera to accurately identify the face of a motorcyclist wearing a full-face helmet.

So far, there don't seem to be any major complaints by those who have been ticketed -- 442 citations were issued in November and 508 in December.

Deputy City Attorney Katharine Albright said her office consulted with the state Legislature to see if "it was possible that somebody would allege an invasion of privacy. It's clear, however, that the privacy concern is balanced overwhelmingly by the compelling need to enforce red-light laws. Any time you have a law and hope to enforce it, you hope they'll obey the law."

Hope is one thing, getting people to obey is another.

"We say other people should live better lives, but we don't necessarily do it ourselves,'' Lipsitz, the psychologist, said.

"Then there's the whole psychology of driving behavior and the meaning of cars. People see cars as extensions of themselves -- their private selves, rather than their public selves. So they're more likely to act out on the basis of aggressive impulses or fantasies than they would ordinarily do in their public behavior."

And a San Francisco traffic cop with nearly three decades' experience, a man who has the unique perspective of dealing with those impulses and fantasies at street level day after day, says the problem can be summed up this way:

"If they see the yellow, they step on the gas. What they should do is step on the brake. But they don't.''

The San Francisco Chronicle

By Michael Taylor, Chronicle Staff Writer

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

Attorney Darryl Billups, 48, who has a private practice in San Pablo, was taken into custody about 2:50 a.m. after failing a field sobriety test in the 1300 block of San Pablo Avenue, said Captain Bill Cooper of the University of California at Berkeley police.

Billups was booked at Berkeley City Jail on $31,000 bail on suspicion of felony drunken driving and driving with a revoked license.

Campus police officer Tina Johnson was patrolling a nearby UC housing complex when she spotted Billups' green 1996 Toyota Avalon lying at an angle on top of the median on San Pablo Avenue near Gilman Street, Cooper said.

Billups "appeared to be incoherent and didn't seem to be paying attention" to the officer, Cooper said.

A subsequent breath test put Billups' blood-alcohol level at .22 percent, nearly three times the legal limit of .08 percent, police said.

According to Department of Motor Vehicle records, Billups has been convicted of drunken driving four times since 1991. His license was revoked in February 1995.

Drunken driving, usually charged as a misdemeanor, becomes a felony on the fourth conviction. Billups was placed on court-ordered probation for his three most recent convictions.

Billups joined the Alameda County district attorney's office in 1976, serving in municipal court, juvenile, trial and career criminal court positions before being promoted to senior deputy district attorney in 1989.

He resigned in 1995, said Rich Michaels, chief assistant in the district attorney's office. Michaels said he could not discuss the details of Billups' resignation.

Billups could not be reached for comment.

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Do you need a California DUI Attorney?

Driving in Arresting Officers Presence

This always involves a question of whether or not the defendant's activities witnessed by the arresting officer amounted to the act of "driving".

Circumstantial Presence Evidence

People v Bellomo (1984) . . . there was no need to decide whether or not the defendant was driving in the presence of the arresting officer when the defendant was found asleep behind the wheel, with the engine running, in a traffic lane, awaiting a red light . . . guilty (40300.5).

Are you in need of a California DUI Attorney?

The "Every 15 Minute" program consisted of an intense two-day event that focused on high school juniors and seniors which challenged them to think about drinking alcoholic beverages, personal safety, and the responsibility of making mature decisions when lives are involved. The Chico Police Department was notified of the National League of Cities award by the organization's Executive Director, Donald J. Borut. Winning in the Community Policing and Businesses category, Chico will be presented with the award at a National League of Cities Convention on December 10, 1996, in San Antonio, Texas.

Chico Police Officer Melody Davidson, who spearheaded a community wide involvement in the "Every 15 Minutes" program, said the program was developed on the premise that generally, "teens do care very deeply about others, especially their friends and families." Said Davidson, "By creating an intense, realistic simulation of their 'death' students could see very clearly how much pain they would cause others by making poor decisions regarding the use of alcohol......"

Twenty-four students from the two Chico High Schools were chosen to become the living dead for a day. Every 15 minutes, the "Grim Reaper" would take a student from a classroom and a police officer would read the student's obituary which mentioned the cause of death as being alcohol-related.

A mock fatal DUI collision was staged on the school grounds with a number of safety agencies involved, including the fire department, the police department, California Highway Patrol, ambulance crews, and the coroner's office. The collision depicted a drunk driver, a fatal victim, and a seriously injured victim who later died at the hospital. Mock death notifications were given to the students parents, and the students were housed overnight at a local hotel to give the impression of being "gone" to both parents and their friends.

The next day, a student assembly was held with the "living dead" students as well as representatives from community organizations giving a presentation on how making the wrong decisions can affect many people. Students as well a community leaders said they felt their was a strong impact on those who participated and observed the two-day event. At the conclusion of the program, an operational plan was developed which is available to other communities along with a thirty (30) minute documentary video depicting how the program was put together. The operational plan is designed to work for any type of agency, school or organization and is not exclusively for use by law enforcement. The Chico Enloe Hospital emergency/trauma teams, community service organizations and businesses also participated and supported the program. The National League of Cities award is the second honor received by the Chico Police Department for the Every 15 Minutes program. In September, the Department received a California Crime Prevention Award for Public Agencies from the California Crime Prevention Officers Association.

Anyone interested in receiving more information about the program can call Officer Melody Davidson at the Chico Police Department, (916)895-4720.

Carl De Wing
Public Information Officer
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
E-Mail: C.DeWing@ABC.CA.GOV

Bob Stribling, Network Administrator,
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
E-Mail: sys580@nic.tdcnet.ca.gov URL: http://www.abc.ca.gov
If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch

Do you need of California DUI Attorney?

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?