On Monday, the California General Assembly passed legislation calling for increased penalties for those convicted of multiple CA DUI offenses. Bill AB1601 gives authority to the courts to revoke a driver's license for ten years when the offender has been convicted of three or more times for drunk driving within ten years.

Under current California drunk driving laws, a motorist can lose his/her license for two to five years.

The bill has been passed by the Assembly and now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk for consideration.

Are you needing legal help from a qualified California DUI lawyer?

A piece of anti-drunk driving legislation in the California State Assembly has been modified by an Appropriations Committee, removing two main points from the original bill. The key changes include the removal of a life-time 'look-back' period for prior California DUI arrests and the elimination of a provision allowing judges to permanently suspend a repeat offender's driver's license.

Under current state law, the prosecution can search a ten year window for any prior driving under the influence offenses in California. Any DUI more than ten years old is not included on a driver's record. Regarding license suspension, the existing law allows a judge to revoke a license for three years after a third offense for DUI in California. The proposed legislation sought to change that to a lifetime suspension. The compromise was a revocation of up to 10 years at the discretion of the judge.

Economics were cited for the changes in the proposed bill. California is currently grappling with a $19 billion deficit and any new expenses to the state budget are highly scrutinized. The lifetime look-back period especially would have increased the number of felony DUI convictions, in turn adding more inmates to the already crowded state prison system.

The original bill was challenged by civil liberties advocates and California DUI defense lawyers. It was noted that getting one's license back is strong incentive for a CA DUI offender to seek treatment for an alcohol problem which would potentially reduce recidivism. As part of the process, it is recommended that repeat offenders be required to install an ignition interlock in their vehicles before having driving privileges restored.

Starting July 1, 2010, California will begin testing a pilot program requiring mandatory installation ignition interlock devices for those arrested for drunk driving in Los Angeles, Tulare, Alameda and Sacramento Counties. If successful, the program may be expanded to the rest of the state.

The author of the DUI legislation is undeterred by the committee changes, saying that compromise is part of the legislative process. He added that any opportunity to remove a drunk driver from the highway is worth it. The bill now heads for a vote on the Assembly floor. If passed it will be taken up by the state Senate.

Are you needing help from a California DUI attorney?

Legislation drafted to increase the penalty for driving under the influence in California has stalled in committee over anticipated costs associated with the bill. The measure drafted by Assemblyman Jerry Hill would give judges the authority to permanently revoke the driver's licenses of those convicted of a third DUI offense. It would also allow authorities to review a person's entire driving history rather than being limited to a 10-year look-back period, and assign jail sentences accordingly.

A consultant has reviewed the bill and estimates it would cost taxpayers at minimum $11 million and potentially as much as $28 million. The bulk of the costs would be associated with the need to expand California's already crowded prison system. The proposed DUI measure comes at a time when the federal government has ordered California to reduce its prison population. To comply, the state has released inmates incarcerated for lesser crimes, like drug possession, theft and DUI in California.

Under current state law a motorists found guilty of drunk driving in California is subject to a jail sentence, beginning with a first offense. Typically, an offender is offered court ordered treatment programs before being sent to jail. The potential jail term increases with each additional offense within 10 years, and a fourth offense is filed as a felony.

Opponents of the license revocation bill say that it will remove a very influential incentive for drunk driving offenders to enter an alcohol or substance abuse treatment program. Research shows a drop in recidivism for drunk driving when an offender is required to complete a treatment program before being licensed to drive again.

Are you looking for a California DUI Lawyer?

Currently the DMV has the ability to look back ten years when considering the administrative suspension of a motorist’s license for DUI in California. The new legislation would certainly increase California drunk driving penalties for chronic, repeat offenders.

Hill submitted the legislation after learning that two constituents in his district have nine California DUI arrests on their records. He expressed dismay that drivers in California are still legally qualified to operate a vehicle as long as they had not killed or injured anyone during their DUI incidents.

Statistics compiled by the DMV show that 34,145 motorists in the state have three or more arrests for California drunk driving on their records. 154,337 drivers have two or more DUI arrests.

Have you been arrested for drunk driving in CA?

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?

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?

The same penalties apply if a breath test reveals a BAC of .01% or greater.

Have you been arrested for DUI in CA?

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.

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 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?

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.

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?

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?

(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.

If you talk to a DUI attorney that knows the ins and outs of the California DUI laws, there are all sorts of variables to consider. Usually you will not give a clear answer. After ten years of working with first offenders I can tell you within a general framework of what MOST DUI (VC23152) first offenders receive in the 10 county Bay Area.

First Offender Penalties

In Court

• $1200 fine.
• 3 years probation (informal - no probation officer).
• 3-5 days sheriff work alternative program (picking up trash, cleaning buses, etc.) OR
• 90 license restriction (to start AFTER 4 months DMV suspension is over).
• First Offender School (3/4 months long).

This is in addition to the four months immediate DMV suspension that starts 30 days after your driving under the influence stop.

These two ACTIONS (court and DMV) are SEPARATE and do not influence one another. Many times someone gets their license back by going to the DMV hearing and then is convicted in the court. Or, the DA drops the charges and the DMV still suspends your license!

With the conviction in the court you are allowed to get a restricted license AFTER a 30 day hard suspension (after the 30 day temporary license period is over = two months after your DUI stop). This allows you to drive to and from work and in the course of your employment and to and from the DUI class. The only 'draw back' to the license restriction is that it is restricted for 5 months (they say 6 but the DMV counts the first month of suspension). OR you can ride out the 4 months suspension period and get you license back. BUT, once the court notifies the DMV that you have been convicted of driving under the influence or a wetreckless and as part of your probation you have been sent to a First Offender Program. The requirement to show proof of completion of the program will be added to the list of items needed (Proof of Insurance SR-22 and pay $125 to get your license returned.

Remember after January 1, 2003 ALL persons convicted of a DUI in California (23152) will be required to attend and complete a level one program (whether the court sent you to one or not!)

This is GENERALLY the way it works for those convicted of a misdemeanor first offense DUI.

If it is your first offense you will need a California DUI Lawyer.