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?

The following changes were bills that were passed by the Legislature
and signed into law by the Governor. These laws will go into affect in
1997.

1. Financial Responsibility – AB 650 Speier – CH 1126
   Vehicle Code 1680, 4000.37, 16020, 16028, 16029, 16030, 16033, 16070,
   16071, 160457, 40611
   Requires proof of financial responsibility when applying for a vehicle
   renewal registration, and makes the failure to provide a peace officer
   with proof of financial responsibilty an infraction rather than a
   misdeameanor. Makes permissive the requirement for a court to impound a
   vehicle if the driver is unable to produce evidence of finanical
   responsibility, and provides that the vehicle may be released to either
   the legal or registered owner under specified conditions. Sunsets
   January 1, 2000.
   See AB 650
2. DUI: Failure to Appear – AB 1579 Leonard – CH 224
   Vehicle Code 1822, 12807, 12808, 13365.2, 40509, 40509.5
   Requires the court to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of
   a failure to appear in specified driving-under-the-influence offenses.
   Provides that the DMV, upon notification, shall immediately suspend the
   driver’s license of a person who has failed to appear in specified DUI
   offenses.
3. Driver’s License Suspension – AB 95 Bowler – CH 956
   Vehicle Code 13202.3, 14907 Requires the court to notify the DMV of
   convictions of specified controlled substance offenses.
4. Speed Contest – AB 2288 Aguiar – CH 884
   Permits a police offier who arrests a person involved in speed contest
   to immediately seize and remove the vehicle used and to impound it for
   30 days.
5. DUI Penalties – AB 2000 – Goldsmith – CH 690
   Makes it a misdemeanor for a person under 21 to knowingly drive a
   motor vehicle carrying any alcoholic beverages unless the person is
   accompanied by a parent, responsible adult, relative, or other adult
   designated by the parent.
6. Amnesty Program – AB 3095 Villaraigosa – AB 3095
   Authorizes any county on a one-time basis and for a minimum of 120
   days to operate a traffic fine amnesty program for matters that are
   delinquent at least six months prior to the program’s
   commencement.
7. Weight Violations – AB 2345 Morrissey – CH 456
8. Graffiti – AB 2331 Goldsmith – CH 918
9. Unlawful Possession of Vehicle Documents – AB 95 Bowler – CH
   956
10. Fleeing a Peace Officer – AB 1999 – Knight – CH 420
11. Disabled Persons License Plate – SB 1527 – CH 116

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

(BCN) — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed three bills Thursday meant
to toughen California’s driving under the influence laws.

The bills would extend the length that a DUI conviction remains on a
driver’s record, as well as give more power to the Department of Motor
Vehicles for enforcing DUI laws.

Senator Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, authored the bills after the
hit-and-run deaths of Danville brother and sister, Troy and Alana Pack,
in October 2003

Jimena Barretto, 45, has been charged with the deaths and was
allegedly under the influence when the accident occurred. Torlakson
alleges Barretto had a two-decade history of drunk driving
convictions.

"Nothing can change the tragedy endured by the Pack family, but these
new laws can help prevent similar accidents," said Torlakson in a written statement.

SB 1694 will extend the length of previous DUI violations on a
person’s driving record to 10 years.

SB 1697 will consolidate Drivers license restrictions and revocations
for DUI violators at the DMV. According to Torlakson, this would
streamline license sanction and reduce costs and workloads for
courts.

SB 1696 will force DUI treatment providers to send a certificate of
completion directly to the DMV.

The bills become law on Jan.1, 2005.

(Copyright 2004, Bay City News. All rights reserved.)

Two More DUI Bills Become Law

By Simon Read, Staff Writer

TriValley Herald

DANVILLE — The parents of two Danville children struck and killed
last year by a hit-and-run driver scored a personal victory on Thursday
when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law two bills aimed at
preventing drunken driving.

The laws, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, will impose harsher
restrictions on those who drive impaired or intoxicated. The legislation
was championed by Bob and Carmen Pack, who lost their two children to a
driver with multiple convictions for driving under the influence.

SB 1694 will increase the state’s statute of limitations on previous
DUI offenses from seven years to 10 years. SB 1697 will consolidate
driver’s license restrictions and revocations for DUI violators at the
Department of Motor Vehicles, thus streamlining sanctions.

Both bills were co-authored by state Sens. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch,
and Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough. Last week, Schwarzenegger signed SB
1696, which requires DUI-treatment providers to send a certificate of
completion directly to the DMV.

"We’re very excited that the bills have passed and that the governor
saw the importance of all three bills," Bob Pack said. "I think it’s a
sign that our officials want to be proactive in making California a
leader in saving lives through stricter DUI laws."

The Packs played a pivotal role in getting the three bills introduced
back in February. They traveled to Sacramento and testified before state
officials regarding the events of Oct. 26, 2003.

The Packs’ children, Troy, 10, and Alana, 7, were killed in Danville
on that day. They were riding a bicycle and a scooter, respectively, on
Camino Tassajara when a Mercedes 300D jumped the sidewalk at Rassani
Drive, according to court records.

Alana died immediately. Troy died that night at Children’s Hospital
Oakland.

Jimena Barreto, 45, of Walnut Creek was driving the vehicle and left
the scene of the accident, records said. Police arrested her two days
later in San Jose.

Records said Barreto, a professional nanny, has two prior DUI
convictions

and was driving on a suspended license. A grand jury indicted Barreto
in May on charges of second-degree murder.

She also faces counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while
intoxicated, driving under the influence causing bodily injury, felony
hit-and-run, driving on a suspended license and possessing cocaine.
Barreto’s trial is scheduled to begin on Oct. 18.

"These bills (stemmed) from a horrible tragedy," Torlakson spokesman
Robert Oakes said Thursday. "This family that suffered an incredible loss
was willing to testify to state legislators. They went out so far."

Oakes said the new laws will eradicate loopholes that allow repeat DUI
offenders to stay on the road.

"If these laws had been in place last year, that woman would not have
been driving," he said. "But this is a reminder that when good people are
willing to take part in the public process, good things can happen."

Steve McKaskey, president of the Alameda County Chapter of Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, said the group supported all three bills
throughout the legislative process.

"We believe they will help reduce the death toll due to
alcohol-related crashes on our streets and highways," he said.

McKaskey lost his 22-year-old son, Matthew, in a drunken-driving
accident in Livermore that also killed two others in February 2001. The
driver, Nicole Le Freniere, 22, is serving a six-year term in Valley
State Prison for Women in Chowchilla.

The Packs, meanwhile, said they are not ready to sit back and relax
just yet. Already, they are hoping to introduce drug-reform legislation
next year.

"There is much more we can do," Bob Pack said. "I would like to say to
the governor that this is just the beginning. Next year, ‘I’ll be
back.’"

Staff writer Simon Read covers public safety for the Herald. He can be
reached at (925) 416-4849, or [email protected].

Are you in need of California DUI Lawyers?

By: From Associated Press

SACRAMENTO
Gov. Pete Wilson signed legislation Thursday to more than double prison
terms for repeat drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents, saying that
"from now on, the punishment will match the crime."

The bill, known as "Courtney’s law," was named for 15-year-old
Courtney Cheney of Roseville, who was killed last year by a drunk driver
with four prior convictions for driving under the influence of
alcohol.

The new law imposes prison sentences of 15 years to life for motorists
convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter who have two or more previous
convictions for drunk driving or one prior conviction for vehicular
manslaughter or a similar charge.

"A drunken driver is more than an accident waiting to happen. You’re a
loaded weapon," Wilson said. "We are sending a message to California
motorists, one we hope will scare them sober."

In a bill-signing ceremony in Wilson’s office, Suzanne Meyer,
Courtney’s mother, said it was "both a happy and sad day for us," sad
because she still mourns her daughter’s death, but happy because her name
will be memorialized in a law that will save lives.

Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame), principal author of the
bill, described it as a three-strikes law for serious drunk driving
offenders.

She said current law will let the driver who killed Courtney out of
jail in 5 1/2 years.

"Everything we can do to stop the slaughter must be done," Speier
said. "Pure and simple, Courtney’s law takes problem drunken drivers off
the road and puts them behind the bars where alcohol is never
served."

Type of Material: Wire Service Story

Descriptors: WILSON, PETE; CALIFORNIA — LAWS; SENTENCING; DRUNK DRIVING;

Are you in need of a California DUI Attorney?

New Driving Laws

Motorland January/February 1996

Speed

California is prepared to return to its pre-1973 speed limits. Speeds
up to 70 mph on some roads may reappear after study by Caltrans and the
CHP.

Law Enforcement

Cameras
Authorities can set up sensor-operated camers at traffic signals.
Cameras could photograph drivers and license plates of vehicles that fail
to stop; registered owners would be cited by mail. If the person cited
wasn’t driving, it is up to him/her to prove it.
Be Aware Of How This Law Works: It can cost more than the price of a
ticket. Paying the fine will result in a point on your driving record and
possibly increased insurance premiums.
The photograph is not included in the mailed citation: to see it, the
recipient must go to where it’s being held – usually the issuring
agency.

Child Support and Licenses
Motorists who are in arrears for child support applying for a new
driver’s license or for renewal will be given a temporary license good
for 150 days in order to give them the opportunity to clear the back
payments.

Money

Higher Fines
Significantly higher traffic fines in certain location my result from SB
414 (Thompson, D-Napa Valley. Portions of State Route 37, 4, and 74 are
“safety enhancement double fine zones.”. This means that fines bouble for
traffic violations and, in case of an infraction, the penalty will be one
category higher than the penalty established in current law.

Safety
The safety belt law is here to stay. New law continues primary
enforcement of the law requiring motorist to wear safety belts. This bill
means that for now and into the future, enforcement of the safety blt law
will remain the same: Motorists can be stopped and cited if not wearing
their safety belts.

Sacramento — The program is called “Every 15 Minutes”. The program was funded in part by a grant from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control under the GALE (Grant Assistance to Local Law Enforcement) Project.

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: [email protected]

Bob Stribling, Network Administrator,
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
E-Mail: [email protected] 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?

Much of what has been said about alcohol also applies to drugs (both
legally prescribed medicines and illegal drugs). The state’s drunk
driving law is also a drug driving law since it refers to "driving under
the influence of alcohol and/or drugs."

California DUI law does not have to say which drugs are involved. Many medicines can affect the way one drives. Alcohol can enhance some of the dangerous side effects of many drugs, even those that are prescribed by your physician or purchased over the counter. It is important that you check with your physician or pharmacist before driving after taking any medication.

Almost any drug can affect a person’s driving skill. This is true of
prescription drugs, drugs you can buy over the counter, or illegal drugs.
Here are some facts:

Most drugs taken for headaches, colds, hay fever, al lergy, or to calm
nerves can make a person drowsy and this can affect his or her
driving.

Taking any drug can affect safe driving. Medicines taken together, or
used with alcohol can be dangerous. Drivers should ask their physician or
pharmacist about how any medicine may affect their driving. Many drugs
have unexpected effects when they are taken with alcohol. Drugs and
alcohol should never be used at the same time.

Pep pills, "uppers," and diet pills can make a driver more alert for a
short time. Later, however, they can cause a person to be nervous, dizzy,
and not able to concentrate. They can also affect vision.

Make sure you read the label and know the effects of any drug you use.
If it is a common drug, read the label. Any drug that "may cause
drowsiness or dizziness" is one you should not take before driving.

Any drug (and the California DUI laws do not distinguish between prescription, over-the-counter, or illegal drugs) which impairs your driving is illegal. If an officer suspects that you are under the influence of drugs, the officer can require that you take a blood or urine test. Persons refusing these tests will be subject to the same license suspensions and revocations as for alcohol test refusals. Anyone convicted of possessing, selling, or manufacturing illegal drugs will be subject to a six-month suspension.

ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE

When you drive in California, you consent to take a test of your
blood, breath, or urine if you are arrested for driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. A breath test is also required if
you are under 21 years of age and detained because the officer believes
you have been drinking any amount of alcohol. If you have a BAC of 0.08%
or more, or under age 21 and have a BAC of 0.05% or more, or you refuse,
or fail to complete a test, the peace officer will take away your
license, and at the same time serve you with an order of suspension or
revocation. The suspension or revocation takes effect in 30 days. Within
that 30-day period, you can request a hearing. However, a stay of the
action will be granted only if the hearing is requested within 10 days
after the date on the order and the department cannot provide a hearing
before the effective date of the action. The issues at the hearing are
only the facts related to the arrest or detention and the tests, not
whether or not you need a driver license.

If you are arrested because a police officer suspects you have alcohol
or drugs in your body, you will be required to take a test to see if it
is true. You must choose which one of the three kinds of tests will be
used. (But if you are suspected of being under the influence of a drug,
you may be required to take a blood or urine test.) If you are taken to a
clinic or hospital for medical reasons and it does not have all three
tests, you must take one of the tests avail able. You do not have the
right to talk to a lawyer or to have one present before deciding on the
test, or during the test.

The suspension or revocation is independent of any jail, fine, or
other criminal penalty imposed in court for the driving under the
influence offense.

How Long Will I Be Suspended Or Revoked?

If you did not take, or you failed to complete, a chemical test:

• First offenseSuspended 1 year.
• Second offense in 7 years Revoked 2 years.
• Three or more offenses in 7 yearsRevoked 3 years.

If you took a chemical test or a breath test and the test showed 0.08%
or more, or 0.05% BAC or more, if under 21 years old:

• First offenseSuspended 4 months.
• One or more prior offenses in 7 yearsSuspended 1 year.

Zero Tolerance Law

California DUI laws are stricter for drivers under 21 years of age. The law requires a person under 21 to take a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) test if a peace officer believes the person had been drinking. This test is administered at the scene using a hand-held PAS device.

If the person’s BAC is 0.01% or higher or the person refuses to take,
or fails to complete, a PAS, DMV will suspend the person’s driving
privilege for one year.

If there is no PAS device available, the person can choose between a
blood, breath, or urine test to determine the BAC level and if the BAC is
0.05% or more, the person may be arrested for driving under the
influence. The penalties mentioned above will then apply.

Restricted License

A restricted license (only for first offense of 0.08% BAC or more) can
be issued following a 30-day suspen sion of the driving privilege if a
chemical test was taken and you were 21 years of age or older when the
offense occurred.

You may obtain a restricted license for driving to and from a state
licensed DUI program or you may obtain a five-month restricted license to
operate to and from work and driving during the course of employment and
to and from the activities of a DUI program if you:

• Submit evidence of enrollment in a DUI program.
• File proof of insurance and maintain it for three years.
• Pay all applicable fees.

Ignition Interlock

An ignition interlock is a hand-held breath testing device which is
connected to the vehicle and requires the driver to take a breath test
for alcohol each time the vehicle is started. A court may require a
driver to install such a device if the driver is convicted of driving
under the influence once. The court must require a driver to install such
a device if the driver is convicted of driving under the influence more
than once. The device must stay on the vehicle during the time the driver
is suspended or revoked plus one to three years afterwards. The driver
must pay for having the device installed and for having it checked every
two months to be sure it is still working properly.

NEGLIGENT DRIVING AND LOSS OF LICENSE FOR DRIVERS OVER 18 YEARS OF
AGE

Your license can be taken away if you break the law or become an
unsafe driver.

When you are stopped by a police officer and cited for a traffic law
violation, you sign a promise to appear in traffic court. There you may
plead guilty or not guilty, or you may forfeit (pay) bail. Paying bail is
the same as a guilty plea.

If you ignore the traffic ticket and don’t keep your promise to appear
in court, the failure to appear (FTA) goes on your driver record. If you
fail to pay a fine (FTP), the court will notify DMV and this will also
show on your driver record. Even one FTA or FTP will cause the depart
ment to suspend your license. Ending the suspension will cost you a
reinstatement fee of $15.

Each time you are convicted of a moving traffic law violation, the
court notifies the DMV. A record of this conviction is placed in your
driver license file.

POINTS ON THE DRIVER RECORD

The department keeps a public record of all your traffic convictions
and accidents. Each occurrence will stay on your record for 36 months or
longer, depending on the type of conviction. A traffic conviction for
driving unsafely counts as one point.

Any "at fault" accident is normally counted as one point.

Two points are charged against you if you are convicted of reckless
driving, of driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs, of hit-and-run
driving, of evading a peace officer, of driving while suspended or
revoked, or of driving on the wrong side of the road. This list is not
all -inclusive.

If you get too many "points," you will lose your driver license.

Remember, the more traffic convictions you have, the more likely you
are to have an accident.

You may be considered a NEGLIGENT OPERATOR of a motor vehicle when
your driving record shows any one of the following "point count"
regardless of your license class:

• 4 points in 12 months
• 6 points in 24 months
• 8 points in 36 months

If you receive certain convictions while operating a commercial
vehicle, you will be charged 11/2 times as many points. Refer to the
California Commercial Driver Handbook for additional information.

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

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?

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?

One question I get more than any other is "What will happen to me in the court on my first offense for DUI in California?"

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.