DUI
CA DUI Laws
Proposed Legislation Would Get Tough on BUI in California
Lawmaker wants to seize driver’s licenses in cases of boating under the influence in CA.
California state lawmaker John Benoit has sponsored legislation that would suspend a California driver’s license when an individual is convicted of boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
In the mid-90’s the California Department of Motor Vehicles began suspending the privilege to drive a vehicle following a BUI conviction. That action was stopped following a 2008 decision by the California Court of Appeals that the DMV lacked the authority to do so. Senate Bill 154 aims to reinstate the license suspension penalty. The legislation calls for the DMV to suspend driving privileges for those with a prior conviction for California DUI or BUI when found guilty of a subsequent offense. Offenders would also be required to complete an alcohol education program.
State records show that approximately one quarter of all deaths on California waterways involves alcohol impairment. Benoit issued a press release stating, “My legislation reflects the seriousness of BUI offenses, protecting the safety of travelers on California’s streets, highways and waterways.” The bill was passed by the Senate in late May and received support from the Assembly Committee on Public Safety last week. It is now scheduled for review by the full Assembly.
Have you been charged with BUI in CA?
Filed in California DUI | DUI Laws | Permalink | Comments (0)
Drunken Boating in California May Be Treated as DUI
New legislation hopes to tie BUI to California DUI penalties.
A bill is being considered in the state Senate that will make Boating Under the Influence as serious as Driving Under the Influence in California. Since the mid-90’s the Department of Motor Vehicles has been treating drunk boating offenses like CA DUI cases, suspending the offender’s driver’s license. Last year, however, a court of appeals ruled that the DMV does not have that authority. The proposed legislation would establish that authority.
Senator John Benoit’s bill would allow the DMV to suspend a boater’s license in the event of an arrest for boating under the influence. It would also mandate enrollment in an alcohol awareness program. Benoit says there is a need for making the state’s waterways safe for recreational and commercial use. Local harbor patrols agree, citing the responsibility a boat operator has to the occupants of the vessel.
During 2007, there were a reported 55 boating accidents resulting in fatality in California waters. Nearly half of the fatalities were boat passengers and 20 victims were found to be under the influence of alcohol.
Lawmakers and law enforcement officers alike hope that people who venture out on the water first establish a designated boater for safety.
Have you been arrested for DUI in CA?
Filed in California DUI | DUI Laws | Permalink | Comments (1)
Changes to California DUI Laws
New year brings new California drunk driving legislation.
Effective Thursday, January 1, there will be zero tolerance for repeat offenders of driving under the influence in California. A new law stipulates that a person convicted of CA DUI cannot operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .01 per cent or greater while on probation for the DUI offense. A motorist on probation for California DUI is required to submit to a breath test when requested by a law enforcement officer. Refusal to do so will result in a ticket being issued, driver’s license being seized, driving privileges suspended and impoundment of vehicle.
The same penalties apply if a breath test reveals a BAC of .01% or greater.
Have you been arrested for DUI in CA?
Filed in California DUI | DUI Laws | Permalink | Comments (0)
California DUI Applies to Bicyclists
Bike riders can be charged with ’driving’ under the influence in CA.
The law states that bicyclists are subject to the same rights as other vehicles, which conversely means they are subject to the same penalties, including DUI in California. The California Vehicle Code states that it is unlawful for a person to ride a bicycle on a highway while under the influence of alcohol or any drug.
As with a motorized vehicle, a first time DUI offense is typically filed as a misdemeanor. The penalties can include fines and mandatory community service. If convicted, a bicycle DUI in California will remain on a person’s Department of Motor Vehicles driving record for three years.
If you have been charged with driving under the influence in California you need to hire an experienced CA DUI Lawyer.
Filed in California DUI | DUI Related | Permalink | Comments (0)
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.
Filed in California DUI | DUI News | Permalink | Comments (0)
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.
Do you need a California DUI Lawyer?
Filed in California DUI | DUI News | Permalink | Comments (0)
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.
Filed in California DUI | DUI Laws | Permalink | Comments (0)
Does the officer have to see you driving under the influence (DUI)?
Penal Code 836 provides that a peace officer may make an arrest for a misdemeanor only when he has probable cause to believe the offense occurred in his presence.
The question of reasonable cause to believe that a misdemeanor is taking place in the officer's presence is measured by events observable to the officers at the time of the arrest. If the officer cannot testify, based on his or her senses, to acts which constitute every material element of the misdemeanor, it cannot be said that the misdemeanor was committed in his presence.
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?
Tags:
Filed in California DUI | DUI Laws | Permalink | Comments (0)
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?
Tags:
Filed in California DUI | Court Rulings | Permalink | Comments (0)
First Offense Under California DUI Law
First Offense: Completion of DUI Program and Restricted Driver's License.
13352.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the department shall issue a restricted driver's license to a person whose driver's license was suspended under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if the person meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Submits proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or completion of, a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538.
(2) Submits proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430.
(3) Pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any restriction fee required by the department.
(b) The restriction of the driving privilege shall become effective when the department receives all of the documents and fees required under subdivision (a) and shall remain in effect until the final day of the original suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, or until the date all reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352 have been met, whichever date is later, and may include credit for any suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(c) The restriction of the driving privilege shall be limited to the hours necessary for driving to and from the person's place of employment, driving during the course of employment, and driving to and from activities required in the driving-under-the-influence program.
(d) Whenever the driving privilege is restricted under this section, proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430, shall be maintained for three years. If the person does not maintain that proof of financial responsibility at any time during the restriction, the driving privilege shall be suspended until the proof required under Section 16484 is received by the department.
(e) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit may not be given to a program activity completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(f) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 immediately upon receipt of notification from the driving-under-the-influence program that the person has failed to comply with the program requirements. The privilege shall remain suspended until the final day of the original suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, or until the date all reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352 have been met, whichever date is later.
(g) The holder of a commercial driver's license who was operating a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the time of a violation that resulted in a suspension or revocation of the person's noncommercial driving privilege under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 is not eligible for the restricted driver's license authorized under this section.
(h) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination, as authorized under subdivision (d) of Section 23536 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 23538, to disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's license, the department may not issue a restricted driver's license under this section.
(i) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005. Added Sec. 5, Ch. 551, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005. Operative September 20, 2005
Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d06/vc13352_4.htm
If it is your first DUI you will need a California DUI Attorney.
Tags:
Filed in California DUI | DUI Laws | Permalink | Comments (0)
