Articles

ABC Offers Internet Subscription

ABC OFFERS FREE NEWS RELEASE SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE

SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 8 /PRNewswire/ — The California Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control has initiated a News Release Subscription
System through the Internet which will allow you to automatically receive
any news releases or material of importance for public consumption.

This subscription service is free. To test the system, we are inviting
only bona fide media or industry publications and organizations to
subscribe during the next 30 day period. The subscription period will
begin on April 8, 1996, and close on May 6, 1996. After that date, the
system will be evaluated for 30 to 60 days before reopening subscriptions
to those who meet the above criteria.

Any SMTP or POP3 compliant Internet mail application may be used to
subscribe to the ABC System.

To subscribe, address your mail to: abcnrssabc.ca.gov Leave the
subject line blank. Enter the following on the first line of the
body:

subscribe ABCPress-L MyFirstName MyLastName Enter your real first and
last names where it says MyFirstName, MyLastName. Then send it.

If you do not receive a subscription confirmation within 12 hours,
send E-Mail to [email protected].

If you have any questions about the News Release Subscription System,
contact Bob Stribling at the above Internet address, or call 916-
263-6874, or Carl DeWing at 916-263-7949.

May 26, 2012

California Law: Insurance Required to Register Your Car

CHAPTER 1126

FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 30, 1996
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 7, 1995
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 28, 1995
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 22, 1995
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 21, 1995
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 3, 1995
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 26, 1995
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 4, 1995
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 20, 1995
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 27, 1995

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Speier (Principal coauthors: Assembly
Members Bowen, Harvey, and Kevin Murray) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Alpert, Goldsmith, Kuehl, McDonald, Mazzoni, and Willard Murray)
(Coauthors: Senators Costa and Thompson)

FEBRUARY 21, 1995
An act to amend, repeal, and add Sections 16020, 16070, 16071, 16457,
and 40611 of, and to add and repeal Sections 1680, 4000.37, 16028, 16029,
16030, and 16033 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 650, Speier. Vehicles: financial responsibility.

(1) Existing law imposes various duties on the Department of Motor
Vehicles relating to vehicles.

This bill would require the department to require, upon application
for renewal of registration of a vehicle, any one of several forms of
evidence that the applicant is in compliance with the financial
responsibility laws of this state, except as specified.

The bill would make technical, clarifying changes in related
provisions of law.

(2) Existing law requires every driver and every owner of a motor
vehicle to be able, at all times, to establish financial responsibility,
as defined, for the vehicle.

This bill would require every person who drives upon a highway a motor
vehicle required to be registered in this state to provide evidence of
financial responsibility for the vehicle upon demand of a peace officer,
as specified.

The bill would make a violation of the financial responsibility
provision specified above an infraction, punishable by specified fines,
and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new
crime.

The bill would authorize a court to order the impounding of the
vehicle of a person who violates the financial responsibility provision,
in addition to the penalties specified above. The bill would authorize
the release of an impounded vehicle to the legal owner or registered
owner of the vehicle under specified circumstances.

The bill would authorize dismissal of charges related to violation of
the financial responsibility provision upon receipt of written evidence
of financial responsibility, as defined, by the clerk of the court and
would authorize the clerk to collect a $10 transaction fee for each case
so dismissed.

The bill would exempt a person from the provisions described above if
the person was driving, with the permission of the person’s employer, a
motor vehicle owned, operated, or leased by that employer, would make the
provision applicable to the employer, and would require a notice to
appear issued pursuant to the above provision to be issued to the
employer rather than the driver. The bill would require the driver to
notify the employer of the receipt of the notice to appear not later than
5 days after receipt. Because a violation of the provision requiring
notification of the employer would be an infraction, the bill would
create a new crime and would thus impose a state-mandated local
program.

The bill would prohibit a person from knowingly providing false
evidence of financial responsibility when requested by a peace officer
pursuant to the financial responsibility provision specified above. The
bill would make a violation of the provision relating to providing false
evidence a misdemeanor, punishable by specified fines and a specified
term in the county jail, and would thereby impose a state-mandated local
program by creating a new crime.

The bill would prohibit a peace officer from stopping a vehicle for
the sole purpose of determining whether the vehicle is being driven in
violation of the financial responsibility provision.

The bill would provide that no public entity or employee, or any
specified person or organization, is liable for any loss, detriment, or
injury resulting from failure to request evidence of financial
responsibility or inaccurately recording that evidence, as specified, or
as a result of the driver producing false or inaccurate financial
responsibility information.

The bill would require the Director of Motor Vehicles, if the
operation of any of the provisions specified above is delayed or
interrupted by the action of a state or federal court and the
constitutionality of the provision is upheld by a final decision of the
court, to calculate what amount of time the operation of the provision
was delayed or interrupted by the court’s action, add the amount
calculated to January 1, 2000, to determine a new repeal date for the
challenged provision, and notify the Secretary of State in writing of the
new repeal date.

The bill would become operative on January 1, 1997, and would remain
in effect only until January 1, 2000, or until the date determined by the
director pursuant to the provision specified above, and as of that date
is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted on or
before January 1, 2000, deletes or extends that date.

The bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.

(4) The bill would become operative only if SB 49 is enacted and
becomes operative.

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:

(a) Driving is a privilege and not a right.

(b) Testimony has been presented to the Legislature that proves that
the injuries of victims of uninsured motorists are so grave as to shock
the public conscience, and this testimony also reveals that these
injuries include death, extreme financial hardship, permanent physical
disability, and emotional trauma.

(c) Law enforcement in California is prevented from effectively
enforcing the vehicle financial responsibility laws because there is no
authority to establish evidence of financial responsibility at the time
of a traffic stop, and only limited authority to establish evidence after
an accident, and this lack of authority has led to at least 28 percent of
all vehicles on the roadways being out of compliance with California’s
existing law requiring financial responsibility.

(d) The towing of a vehicle under this act is not intended by the
Legislature to be a punishment of the driver or owner of the vehicle.
Fines have been established by the Legislature to punish persons who
violate the financial responsibility laws. The towing is, instead,
intended to protect the public against grievous bodily injury or death
that may be caused by a vehicle when it is operated upon the public
roadways in violation of California’s existing law that requires that
financial responsibility be demonstrated by the owner or driver before
the vehicle is operated upon the public roadways.

SEC. 2. Section 1680 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

1680. (a) If the operation of Section 4000.37, 16020, 16028, 16029,
16030, 16033, 16070, 16071, 16457, 22651, or 40611 is delayed or
interrupted by the action of a state or federal court and the
constitutionality of that section is upheld by a final decision of the
court, the director shall do all of the following:

(1) Calculate what amount of time the operation of the section was
delayed or interrupted by the court’s action.

(2) Add the amount calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) to January 1,
2000, to determine a new repeal date for the section.

(3) Notify the Secretary of State in writing of the repeal date
calculated pursuant to paragraph (2) and state that the notice is being
made pursuant to this section.

(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2000,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is
enacted on or before January 1, 2000, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 3. Section 4000.37 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

4000.37. (a) Upon application for renewal of registration of a
vehicle, the department shall require that the applicant submit either
the form specified in paragraph (1) or any one of the items specified in
paragraph (2) as evidence that the applicant is in compliance with the
financial responsibility laws of this state:

(1) A form developed by the department that includes all of the
following:

(A) The name and address of the applicant.

(B) The year, make, model, and vehicle identification number of the
vehicle.

(C) The name, insurer’s identification number, and address of the
insurance company or surety company providing a policy or bond for the
vehicle.

(D) The effective date and expiration date of the policy or bond.

(E) A statement from the insurance company or surety company that the
policy or bond meets the requirements of Section 16056 or 16500.5.

(2) Any of the following:

(A) A statement that the department has issued a certificate of
self-insurance to the applicant pursuant to Section 16053, and the number
of the certificate.

(B) A copy of a certificate or deposit number of a cash deposit that
meets the requirements of Section 16054.2.

(D) A statement that the vehicle is owned or leased by, or under the
direction of, the United States or any public entity that is included in
Section 811.2 of the Government Code.

(E) A notice issued pursuant to Section 16058.

(b) This section does not apply to a vehicle for which a certification
has been filed pursuant to Section 4604, until the vehicle is registered
for operation on the highway.

(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2000, or
until the date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 1680, whichever is later, and as of that date
is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted on or
before January 1, 2000, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 4. Section 16020 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

16020. (a) Every driver and every owner of a motor vehicle shall at
all times be able to establish financial responsibility pursuant to
Section 16021, and shall at all times carry in the vehicle evidence of
the form of financial responsibility in effect for the vehicle.

(b) "Evidence of financial responsibility" means any of the
following:

(1) The name of the insurance or surety company that issued a policy
or bond for the vehicle that meets the requirements of Section 16056 and
is currently in effect, and the number of the insurance policy or surety
bond.

(2) If the owner is a self-insurer, as provided in Section 16052 or a
depositor, as provided in Section 16054.2, the certificate or deposit
number issued by the department.

(3) An insurance covering note, as specified in Section 382 of the
Insurance Code.

(4) A showing that the vehicle is owned or leased by, or under the
direction of, the United States or any public entity, as defined in
Section 811.2 of the Government Code.

(1) The number of an insurance policy or surety bond that was in
effect at the time of the accident, if that information is contained in
the vehicle registration records of the department.

(2) The identifying symbol issued to a highway carrier by the Public
Utilities Commission pursuant to Section 3543 of the Public Utilities
Code and displayed on the motor vehicle.

(d) For purposes of this section, "evidence of financial
responsibility" shall be in writing, and established by writing the name
of the insurance company or surety company and the policy number on the
vehicle registration card issued by the department.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

(f) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2000, or
until the date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 1680, whichever is later, and as of that date
is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted on or
before January 1, 2000, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 5. Section 16020 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

(b) "Evidence of financial responsibility" means any of the
following:

(2) If the owner is a self-insurer, as provided in Section 16052 or a
depositor, as provided in Section 16054.2, the certificate or deposit
number issued by the department.

(3) An insurance covering note, as specified in Section 382 of the
Insurance Code.

(4) A showing that the vehicle is owned or leased by, or under the
direction of, the United States or any public entity, as defined in
Section 811.2 of the Government Code.

(c) For purposes of this section, "evidence of financial
responsibility" also includes the identifying symbol issued to a highway
carrier by the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Section 3543 of
the Public Utilities Code and displayed on the motor vehicle.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2000, or on the
date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a) of Section 1680, whichever is later.

SEC. 6. Section 16028 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

16028. (a) Upon demand of a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (b)
or (c), every person who drives upon a highway a motor vehicle required
to be registered in this state shall provide evidence of financial
responsibility for the vehicle. However, a peace officer shall not stop a
vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the vehicle is being
driven in violation of this subdivision.

(b) Whenever a notice to appear is issued for any alleged violation of
this code, except a violation specified in Chapter 9 (commencing with
Section 22500) of Division 11 or any local ordinance adopted pursuant
thereto, the cited driver shall furnish written evidence of financial
responsibility upon request of the peace officer issuing the citation.
The peace officer shall request and write the driver’s evidence of
financial responsibility on the notice to appear, except where the peace
officer is unable to write the driver’s evidence of financial
responsibility on the notice to appear due to an emergency that requires
his or her presence elsewhere. If the cited driver fails to provide
evidence of financial responsibility at the time the notice to appear is
issued, the peace officer may issue the driver a notice to appear for
violation of subdivision (a). The notice to appear for violation of
subdivision (a) shall be written on the same citation form as the
original violation.

(c) Whenever a peace officer is summoned to the scene of an accident
described in Section 16000, the driver of any motor vehicle that is in
any manner involved in the accident shall furnish written evidence of
financial responsibility upon the request of the peace officer. If the
driver fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility when
requested, the peace officer may issue the driver a notice to appear for
violation of subdivision (a).

(d) (1) If, at the time a notice to appear for a violation of
subdivision (a) is issued, the person is driving a motor vehicle owned,
operated, or leased by the driver’s employer, and the vehicle is being
driven with the permission of the employer, this section shall apply to
the employer rather than the driver. In that case, a notice to appear
shall be issued to the employer rather than the driver, and the driver
may sign the notice on behalf of the employer.

(2) The driver shall notify the employer of the receipt of the notice
issued pursuant to paragraph (1) not later than five days after
receipt.

(e) A person issued a notice to appear for a violation of subdivision
(a) may personally appear before the clerk of the court, as designated in
the notice to appear, and provide written evidence of financial
responsibility in a form consistent with Section 16020, showing that the
driver was in compliance with that section at the time the notice to
appear for violating subdivision (a) was issued. In lieu of a personal
appearance, the person may submit written evidence of financial
responsibility by mail to the court. Upon receipt by the clerk of written
evidence of financial responsibility in a form consistent with Section
16020, further proceedings on the notice to appear for the violation of
subdivision (a) shall be dismissed.

(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

(g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2000, or
until the date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 1680, whichever is later, and as of that date
is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted on or
before January 1, 2000, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 7. Section 16029 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

16029. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of
subdivision (a) of Section 16028 is an infraction and shall be punished
as follows:

(a) Upon a first conviction, by a fine of not less than five hundred
dollars ($500) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

(b) Upon a subsequent conviction, occurring within three years of a
prior conviction, by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars
($1,000) and not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(c) (1) At the discretion of the court, for good cause, and in
addition to the penalties specified in subdivisions (a) and (b), the
court may order the impoundment of the vehicle for which the owner could
not produce evidence of financial responsibility in violation of
subdivision (a) of Section 16028.

(2) A vehicle impounded pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be released to
the legal owner of the vehicle or the legal owner’s agent if all of the
following conditions are met:

(A) The legal owner is a motor vehicle dealer, bank, credit union,
acceptance corporation, or other licensed financial institution legally
operating in this state.

(B) The legal owner or the legal owner’s agent pays all towing and
storage fees related to the seizure of the vehicle.

(C) The legal owner or the legal owner’s agent presents foreclosure
documents or an affidavit of repossession for the vehicle.

(3) (A) A legal owner or the legal owner’s agent that obtains release
of the vehicle pursuant to paragraph (2) shall not release the vehicle to
the registered owner of the vehicle or any agents of the registered
owner, unless the registered owner is a rental car agency, except upon
presentation of evidence of financial responsibility, as defined in
Section 16020, for the vehicle. The legal owner or the legal owner’s
agent shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that the evidence of
financial responsibility that is presented is valid.

(B) Prior to relinquishing the vehicle, the legal owner may require
the registered owner to pay all towing and storage charges related to
impoundment and any administrative charges authorized under Section
22850.5 that were incurred by the legal owner in connection with
obtaining custody of the vehicle.

(4) A vehicle impounded under paragraph (1) shall be released to a
rental car agency if the agency is either the legal owner or the
registered owner of the vehicle and the agency pays all towing and
storage fees related to the seizure of the vehicle.

(5) A vehicle impounded under paragraph (1) shall be released to the
registered owner of the vehicle only upon presentation of evidence of
financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16020, for that vehicle,
and evidence that all towing and storage fees related to the seizure of
the vehicle are paid.

This paragraph does not apply to a person, entity, or agency who is
entitled to release of a vehicle under paragraph (2) or (4) and is
either:

(A) The registered and the legal owner and is described in
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2).

(B) The registered owner or legal owner and is described in paragraph
(4).

(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that fines collected pursuant
to this section be used to reduce the number of uninsured drivers and not
be used to generate revenue for general purposes.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

SEC. 8. Section 16030 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

16030. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who
knowingly provides false evidence of financial responsibility (1) when
requested by a peace officer pursuant to Section 16028 or (2) to the
clerk of the court as permitted by subdivision (e) of Section 16028,
including an expired or canceled insurance policy, bond, or certificate
or deposit number, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not
exceeding seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding 30 days, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
The court shall additionally suspend the driver’s license of any person
convicted of a violation of this subdivision for a period of one year
commencing upon the date of the conviction, in accordance with Sections
13206 and 13207. Driver’s licenses surrendered to the court pursuant to
this section shall be transmitted by the court, together with the
required report of the conviction, to the department within 10 days of
the conviction. Upon conclusion of the period of suspension, the
department shall not return the driver’s license until the licensee
provides evidence of financial responsibility, as defined in Section
16020.

(b) However, in lieu of suspending a person’s driving privileges
pursuant to subdivision (a), the court shall restrict the person’s
driving privileges to driving that is required in the person’s course of
employment, if driving of a motor vehicle is necessary in order to
perform the duties of the person’s primary employment. The restriction
shall remain in effect for the period of suspension otherwise required by
subdivision (a). The court shall provide for endorsement of the
restriction on the person’s driver’s license, and violation of the
restriction constitutes a violation of Section 14603 and grounds for
suspension or revocation of the license under Section 13360.

(c) This section does not apply to a driver who is driving a motor
vehicle owned, operated, or leased by the employer of the driver and
driven with the permission of the employer.

(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2000, or
until the date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 1680, whichever is later, and as of that date
is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted on or
before January 1, 2000, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 9. Section 16033 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

16033. (a) No public entity or employee, or any person or organization
authorized under Section 4610 to endorse receipts or validate
registration cards or potential registration cards, is liable for any
loss, detriment, or injury resulting directly or indirectly from failure
to request evidence of financial responsibility or inaccurately recording
that evidence under Section 16028 or as a result of the driver producing
false or inaccurate financial responsibility information.

(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2000, or
until the date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 1680, whichever is later, and as of that date
is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted on or
before January 1, 2000, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 10. Section 16070 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

16070. (a) Whenever a driver involved in an accident described in
Section 16000 fails to provide evidence of financial responsibility as
required by Section 16020 at the time of the accident, the department
shall pursuant to subdivision (b) suspend the privilege of the driver or
owner to drive a motor vehicle, including the driving privilege of a
nonresident in this state.

(b) Whenever the department receives an accident report pursuant to
this article which alleges that any of the drivers involved in the
accident was not in compliance with Section 16020 at the time of the
accident, the department shall immediately mail to that driver a notice
of intent to suspend the driving privilege of that driver. The department
shall suspend the driving privilege 30 days after mailing the notice,
unless the driver has, prior to that date, established financial
responsibility at the time of the accident, as specified in Section
16021, with the department. The suspension notice shall notify the driver
of the action taken and the right to a hearing under Section 16075.

SEC. 11. Section 16070 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

16070. (a) Whenever a driver involved in an accident described in
Section 16000 fails to prove the existence of financial responsibility as
required by Section 16020 at the time of the accident, the department
shall, pursuant to subdivision (b), suspend the privilege of the driver
or owner to drive a motor vehicle, including the driving privilege of a
nonresident in this state.

(b) Whenever the department receives an accident report pursuant to
this article which alleges that any of the drivers involved in the
accident was not in compliance with Section 16020 at the time of the
accident, the department shall immediately mail to that driver a notice
of intent to suspend the driving privilege of that driver. The department
shall suspend the driving privilege 30 days after mailing the notice,
unless the driver has, prior to that date, established proof of financial
responsibility at the time of the accident, as specified in Section
16021, with the department. The suspension notice shall notify the driver
of the action taken and the right to a hearing under Section 16075.

(c) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2000, or on the
date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a) of Section 1680, whichever is later.

SEC. 12. Section 16071 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

16071. (a) The department shall suspend the driving privilege of any
person upon receiving notice from another state that the person’s driving
privilege in that state has been suspended for failure to meet the
financial responsibility provisions of the law in that state, if the
suspension in that state was taken on grounds that would have resulted in
a suspension in this state.

(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

SEC. 13. Section 16071 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

16071. (a) The department shall suspend the driving privilege of any
person upon receiving notice from another state that the person’s driving
privilege in that state has been suspended for failure to meet the proof
of financial responsibility provisions of the law in that state, if the
suspension in that state was taken on grounds that would have resulted in
a suspension in this state.

(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2000, or on the
date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a) of Section 1680, whichever is later.

SEC. 14. Section 16457 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

16457. (a) Whenever proof of financial responsibility is required to
be filed pursuant to this chapter, no person of whom that proof is
required shall drive any motor vehicle not covered by the certificate of
proof of financial responsibility filed by him or her with the
department, nor shall any applicant for that proof knowingly fail to
disclose ownership of a motor vehicle in the application for proof of
financial responsibility or to disclose any subsequently acquired motor
vehicle.

(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

SEC. 15. Section 16457 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

16457. (a) Whenever proof of financial responsibility is required to
be filed pursuant to Section 16432, no person of whom that proof is
required shall drive any motor vehicle not covered by the certificate of
proof of financial responsibility filed by him or her with the
department, nor shall any applicant for that proof knowingly fail to
disclose ownership of a motor vehicle in the application for proof of
financial responsibility or to disclose any subsequently acquired motor
vehicle.

(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2000, or on the
date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a) of Section 1680, whichever is later.

SEC. 16. Section 40611 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

40611. Upon proof of correction of an alleged violation of Section
12500 or 12951, or any violation cited pursuant to Section 40610, or upon
submission of evidence of financial responsibility pursuant to
subdivision (e) of Section 16028, the clerk shall collect a ten dollar
($10) transaction fee for each case. The fee shall be deposited by the
clerk in accordance with Section 68084 of the Government Code, and
allocated monthly as follows:

(a) Thirty-three percent shall be transferred to the local
governmental entity in whose jurisdiction the citation was issued for
deposit in the general fund of the entity.

(b) Thirty-four percent shall be transferred to the State Treasury for
deposit in the State Penalty Fund established by Section 1464 of the
Penal Code.

(d) No fee shall be imposed pursuant to this section if the violation
notice is processed only by the issuing agency and no record of the
action is transmitted to the court.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1997.

SEC. 17. Section 40611 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:

40611. Upon proof of correction of an alleged violation of Section
12500 or 12951, or any violation cited pursuant to Section 40610, the
clerk shall collect a ten dollar ($10) transaction fee for each case. The
fee shall be deposited by the clerk in accordance with Section 68084 of
the Government Code, and allocated monthly as follows:

(a) Thirty-three percent shall be transferred to the local
governmental entity in whose jurisdiction the citation was issued for
deposit in the general fund of the entity.

(b) Thirty-four percent shall be transferred to the State Treasury for
deposit in the State Penalty Fund established by Section 1464 of the
Penal Code.

(d) No fee shall be imposed pursuant to this section if the violation
notice is processed only by the issuing agency and no record of the
action is transmitted to the court.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2000, or on the
date determined by the director pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a) of Section 1680, whichever is later.

SEC. 18. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section
6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs
that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be
incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a
crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes
the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article
XIIIB of the California Constitution.

Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise
specified, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same
date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California
Constitution.

SEC. 19. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of
this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not
affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without
the invalid provision or application.

SEC. 20. This act shall become operative only if Senate Bill 49 is
enacted and becomes operative.

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

May 27, 2012

DUI on a Horse!

Arrest in Ride That Caused Horse’s Death

Tuesday, December 5, 1995 Â· Page A18

BAY AREA REPORT — SAN FRANCISCO

A 27-year-old Oakland man was arrested for drunk driving and other
crimes after he allegedly stole a horse from the stables in Golden Gate
Park and caused the animal’s death by riding it into the path of an
oncoming truck, police said yesterday.

Three veterinarians tried for several hours to get the injured horse,
a 6-year-old black gelding named “Junior,” back on its feet after the
8:15 p.m. accident Sunday at Fulton Street and 46th Avenue. Eventually
they had to put the animal to sleep.

Police arrested Tyrone McDonald for grand theft, cruelty to animals
and drunken driving.

The hooves of horses!

Oh! witching and sweet

Is the music earth steals from the iron-shod feet;

No whisper of lover, no trilling of bird,

Can stir me as much as hooves of horses

Have stirred.

— — Will H Ogilvie

Drunk Driving Does Not Apply to Horses

Friday, September 24, 2004

3:26:00 PM EDT

Feeling Mischievous

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) —The state Supreme Court ruled that
Pennsylvania’s drunken driving law can’t be enforced against people on
horseback, a decision that inspired the dissenting justice to wax
poetic.

The court ruled Wednesday in a case against two men in Mercer County
in 2002. Riders Keith Travis, 41, and Richard Noel, 49, were charged with
drunken driving along with a man driving a pickup who allegedly
rear-ended the horse Travis was riding away from a bar on a dark country
road.

All three men failed field sobriety tests, police said, but a judge
threw out the charges against Noel and Travis after they argued that the
word “vehicles” in the state’s drunken-driving law doesn’t apply to
horses.

Prosecutors said the code specifically includes people riding animals.
But the majority justices cited a similar case in Utah, where judges said
such a statute is confusing and too vague about which regulations would
apply to animals as well as vehicles.

Justice Michael Eakin, who is fond of writing rhyming opinions, summed
up the lone dissent with two stanzas mimicking the theme song of “Mister
Ed” — a 1960s TV sitcom about a talking horse:

“A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
but the Vehicle Code does not divorce
its application from, perforce,
a steed as my colleagues said.
“It’s not vague,” I’ll say until I’m hoarse,
and whether a car, a truck or horse
this law applies with equal force,
and I’d reverse instead.”

Drunk Horse-And-Buggy Driver Causes Crash

IGA, Latvia – Police in eastern Latvia were trying to determine
Wednesday what charges to bring against a drunken horse-and-buggy driver
who caused a drunken motorist to crash into a ditch, flipping his
car.

The accident happened just before midnight Monday near Kraslava, 140
miles east of the Latvian capital, Riga. The driver of the
horse-and-buggy made an illegal turn onto a main road when he should have
yielded to an oncoming car, said Kraslava police spokeswoman Ingrida
Nevedomska.

To avoid crashing into the horse-and-buggy, the driver of the car, a
Volkswagen Golf, veered into a roadside ditch, flipping his car,
Nevedomska said. The driver was not seriously hurt.

Police, who did not release the names of the drivers, administered
breathalyzer tests and determined they were both legally drunk, Kraslava
traffic police chief Uldis Ornicans said.

The driver of the car was fined $830 and had his license revoked.

But police were unsure what to do about the horse-and-buggy driver –
only motor vehicles and bicycles are covered under the country’s drunk
driving laws.

“How do you ticket a guy driving a horse-and-buggy?” Nemedomska
said.

Ornicans said the man at the reins would probably be charged with
having caused an accident but declined to specify what penalties he might
face.

As for the horse, Nevedomska said, it seemed sober.

May 28, 2012

California Laws: High Fines for No Insurance

If you are caught with a DUI and no insurance, you need a California DUI Attorney.

Got Insurance? Now Prove It – Drivers Without Coverage Face Hefty Fines
By Arthur M. Louis, Chronicle Staff Writer

Although California law requires all motorists to insure their cars,
an estimated 5.5 million of the 21 million vehicles registered in the
state are uninsured.

But starting this year, the law got new teeth. The Legislature passed
a bill requiring motorists to produce proof of insurance before the
Department of Motor Vehicles will renew their registrations.

The new legislation also requires motorists to display proof of
insurance when they are stopped by police officers for traffic
violations. Drivers who can’t do so may have to pay fines ranging from
$1,350 to as high as $5,400 for repeat offenders.

The law — which expires at the end of 1999 unless renewed by the
Legislature — was spearheaded by former Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, a
Burlingame Democrat, whose husband was killed three years ago in a
collision with an uninsured driver.

As a result of the law, many previously uninsured motorists are
rushing to find insurance.

“We are being inundated with applications,” remarks Peter Gorman,
associate vice president of the Alliance of American Insurers, which
represents 300 property-and-casualty companies.

But many other motorists — a lot of them low-income people who claim
that the cost of insurance is too burdensome — continue to evade the
law.

Some are buying counterfeit insurance cards for around $50 apiece from
unscrupulous entrepreneurs, or are stealing registration stickers from
other cars so they won’t have to deal with the DMV.

Others get genuine insurance cards by paying the first month’s
premium, then cancel their policies, says Bill Sirola, a spokesman for
State Farm, California’s largest auto insurer.

Speier says the loophole described by Sirola crept into the law
because of heavy pressure from the insurance com- panies themselves.

Her bill originally required insurance companies to notify the DMV
electronically whenever an auto-insurance customer canceled coverage.

"But the insurance companies cried and complained about the
`extraordinary cost,’ so I took that out of the bill to keep it moving,”
Speier says.

Speier notes, however, that people who present false proof of
insurance are committing a misdemeanor, punishable by suspension of their
driver’s license for a year.

Even some judges and police officers are flouting the new
regulations.

Judges who consider the punishment too severe are letting violators
off the hook, or are imposing fines and penalties well below the $1,350
minimum. And various local police forces aren’t bothering to ask
motorists for proof of insurance — although the California Highway
Patrol is routinely making such requests.

The new law took a lot of people by surprise, and even those who want
to comply may not know how to go about it.

Here is how the law works.

When motorists renew their registration each year, they must send the
DMV a photocopy of the proof-of-insurance card provided by their insurer.
Or, they can display the card itself if they renew at a DMV office.

DMV spokesman Evan Nosoff said the agency prefers to have all renewals
handled by mail. It is a routine transaction, he notes, and the DMV
branches are crowded enough with other business.

Your insurance must meet certain legal minimums.

You must have per-accident coverage of at least $15,000 for injury to
one person, $30,000 for all injuries combined and $5,000 for property
damage.

As an alternative, you can demonstrate that you have enough financial
resources to self-insure. This requires bonded proof that you have set
aside $35,000 in cash to cover any liabilities.

Theft and collision insurance and comprehensive coverage are not
required.

If you are stopped by a police officer and asked for proof of
insurance, you will get a ticket if you can’t produce it at that
time.

However, you can have the ticket nullified by showing proof of
insurance in court. You still will be assessed a $10 fee for
paperwork.

Judges can impound the vehicles of frequent, flagrant violators. There
is no appeal from such a decision. The driver can never get the car back,
although the lender that financed the car can.

If you provide false evidence of insurance coverage and your driver’s
license is suspended, the suspension won’t be lifted until you
demonstrate genuine proof of insurance.

May 27, 2012

California Drivers Required to Use Hands Free Devices

September 15, 2006
By Sandy Meyer Copyright Sandy Meyer

Sacramento, California – California Governor Schwarzenegger has signed
SB 1613 by Sen. Joseph Simitian (D-Palo Alto) that would prohibit the use
of a cell phone in a moving vehicle unless the driver is using a hands
free device.

SB 1613 will:

Prohibit the use of cell phones by drivers unless the driver is
using a hands-free device starting July 1, 2008.
Allow drivers of commercial vehicles to use push-to-talk phones
until July 1, 2011.
Allow drivers to make emergency phone calls without using a
hands-free device.
Allow drivers of emergency response vehicles to use cell phone
without a hands-free device.
Prescribes that a conviction is punishable by a base fine of $20
for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offenses.

Lobbyists for the bill included Verizon Wireless, the nation largest
wireless communications provider, law enforcement agencies and local
government agencies. All are projected to make a lot of money from the
passage of this bill.

Simitian and Verizon had attempted to get a bill on the use of hand
held cellular phones passed in 2003. They did not succeed.

Verizon also sells wireless phones with voice-activated dialing and
two-way speakerphone capabilities. The 2000 merger of Verizon, Bell
Atlantic and GTE created Verizon Communications.

Veriizon has also been active in lobbying for the enactment of similar
legislation in other states. States where Verizon lobbied in that have
enacted laws to require the use of hands free cell phone devices include
Illinois and Massachusetts in 2000, New York ($100. fine) in 2001,
Washington, D.C. and New Jersey in 2004, Connecticut in 2005.

In 2002 — Verizon Wireless began a partnership with the Georgia State
Patrol’s Safety Education Division to promote safer and more responsible
driving. The Atlanta Journal Constition reported that despite a lack of
evidence that hand-held phones are more dangerous on the road than
hands-free devices, or other distractions, the DeKalb County, Georgia,
enacted a fine of up to $500 for drivers who cause a wreck while talking
on cell phones.

The county enacted the new law despite a lack of evidence that
hand-held phones are more dangerous on the road than hands-free devices,
or other distractions, such as eating.

See law:

Source: http://www.ahrc.com

Do you need a California DUI Attorney?

August 22, 2013

Arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI): General

Arrest for Driving Under the Influence (DUI): General
Information

Q. I’ve just been arrested for DUI. What happens now?

A. The officer is required by law to immediately forward a copy of the
completed notice of suspension or revocation form and any driver license
taken into possession, with a sworn report to the DMV. The DMV
automatically conducts an administrative review that includes an
examination of the officer’s report, the suspension or revocation order,
and any test results. If the suspension or revocation is upheld during
the administrative review, you may request a hearing to contest the
suspension or revocation. You have the right to request a hearing from
the DMV within 10 days of receipt of the suspension or revocation order.
If the review shows there is no basis for the suspension or revocation,
the action will be set aside. You will be notified by the DMV in writing
only if the suspension or revocation is set aside following the
administrative review.

Q. At the time of my arrest, the officer confiscated my driver
license. How do I get it back?

A. Your driver license will be returned to you at the end of the
suspension or revocation, provided you pay (on or after January 1, 2003)
a $125 reissue fee to the DMV and you file proof of financial
responsibility. The reissue fee remains at $100 if you were under age 21
and were suspended under the Zero Tolerance Law pursuant to Vehicle Code
Â§Â§23136, 13353.1, 13388, 13392. If it is
determined that there is not a basis for the suspension or revocation,
your driver license will be issued or returned to you.

Q. The officer issued me an Order of Suspension and Temporary License.
What am I supposed to do with this document?

A. You may drive for 30 days from the date the order of suspension or
revocation was issued, provided you have been issued a California driver
license and your driver license is not expired, or your driving privilege
is not suspended or revoked for some other reason.

Q. The Notice of Suspension that the officer gave me at the time of my
arrest states I have ten days to request an administrative hearing. What
is the purpose of this hearing and what can it do for me?

A. A hearing is your opportunity to show that the suspension or
revocation is not justified.

Q. For how long will my driving privilege be suspended if I took the
chemical test?

If you are 21 years of age or older, took a blood or breath test, or
(if applicable) a urine test, and the results showed 0.08% BAC or more: A
first offense will result in a 4-month suspension. A second or subsequent
offense within 7 years will result in a 1-year suspension. If you are
under 21 year of age, took a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test or
other chemical test and results showed 0.01% BAC or more, your driving
privilege will be suspended for 1 year.

May 26, 2012

First Offense Under California DUI Law

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.

May 26, 2012

What Happens to First Offenders Under the California DUI Laws

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.

May 27, 2012

Highway Fines Double on Hwy 4 and 37

Fatal collisions and traffic citations along two of the Bay Area’s most dangerous highways have plummeted since a new law imposed double fines on drivers who break traffic laws.

Motorists are slowing down on Highway 4 in Contra Costa County and Highway 37 in Solano and Sonoma counties.

Some 26 people have died in accidents on Highway 37 in the past five years; 13 have been killed on Highway 4.

So far in 1996, however, only one person has died on each highway. Both accidents involved solo vehicles in which a drunken driver lost control.

“That kind of accident can happen anywhere,” said California Highway Patrol spokesman Cliff Kroeger, who oversees the specially designated zone of Highway 4, a four-mile stretch from Hercules near Interstate 80 to Cummings Skyway in Rodeo.

CHP officials are attributing the reduction in bad accidents on both highways in part to a law passed last year. The measure designates parts of the two highways as special driving zones in which drivers who break the rules face double the time in jail or double fines.

Speeding tickets that would normally range from $80 to $150 instead range from $160 to $300.

But the success on Highway 37 is also because of the installation of a concrete barrier along a part of the dangerous stretch and the elimination of the road’s passing lanes.

“Most of the accidents occurred around the passing lanes,” said Fred Wold, a Solano County spokesman for the CHP. “Now drivers are restricted to driving at a moderate rate and not making any passes.”

Drivers say the barrier, which was installed on only part of the 22-mile highway, has provided a sense of security.

“You can tell that drivers seem more comfortable with that center divider. They slow down when it’s gone,” said Michelle Norman, an employee at Sears Point Raceway, who uses Highway 37 to go from her Vallejo home to work and back. She says that the road definitely seems safer.

However, the barrier has also restricted the CHP from snagging drivers who break the law, because officers no longer can make U-turns.

Highway 37 is the main thoroughfare running along San Pablo Bay connecting Marin and Sonoma counties and Highway 101 with Solano County and Interstate 80. An estimated 35,000 vehicles use the road on any given weekday.

The specially designated zones on the two highways are two lanes, one in each direction. The worst accidents, which claimed multiple victims, have been head-on or broadside collisions in which one vehicle has crossed over into one or more oncoming cars, according to the CHP.

Although no barrier has been placed on Highway 4, the median yellow-line dividers were painted on more thickly and reinforced with jagged strips that rattle tires of vehicles that veer too far to the left.

The CHP also reports issuing fewer citations this year, partly because last year it maintained intense campaigns on both roads to raise drivers’ awareness of the dangers.

Last year, the CHP issued 1,557 tickets on Route 37 from January to July. This year, the number of tickets dropped to 155 for the same months.

Similarly, CHP officers wrote 308 tickets last year on Highway 4 from January to July. This year, the number dropped to 85.

By Suzanne Espinosa Solis, Chronicle East Bay Bureau

Do you need a California DUI Attorney?

May 27, 2012

California: DUI Judges Keep Their Job

A pair of California Superior Court judges caught in separate
incidents misusing their position in an attempt to escape punishment for
drunk driving will keep their jobs and continue to pass judgment on other
motorists. Sonoma County Judge Elaine M. Rushing and Riverside County
Judge Bernard J. Schwartz were each found to have more than double the
legal limit of alcohol in their bloodstream at the time of their arrest.
A commission comprised of appellate court justices found their fellow
judges’ conduct worthy of only a "public censure" reprimand.

On June 21, 2005, while driving drunk, Judge Elaine M. Rushing hit and
damaged a stone fence belonging to a private home at 5571 Crystal Drive
in Santa Rosa. She continued for two miles before guiding her 2001
Porsche into a ditch on Riebli Road. She had a 0.20 blood alcohol level a
the time.

When California Highway Patrol officers arrived on the scene, Judge
Rushing told them that another woman had been behind the wheel. At other
times she said a man she met at a friend’s house was driving, another
woman was in the passenger seat and she was in the back seat. Her vehicle
had no back seat. The unnamed man, she said, fled up the hill after the
crash, taking the keys with him.

Rushing said she had been drinking "two bottles" of alcohol, which she
then corrected to say, "two glasses." When the police on the scene
suspected that her story did not add up and asked her to take a sobriety
test, Rushing responded, "But I’m a judge, and I told you I wasn’t the
driver." She continued to repeat that the officer should not be arresting
a judge and that her husband, Conrad Rushing, was an appellate court
justice as she was hauled away in handcuffs.

An earlier court sentenced Rushing to a ten-day "work release", a
45-hour alcohol counseling program, a $1890 fine, and three years of
informal probation for her DUI conviction. For misusing her office, the
Commission on Judicial Performance found a "public censure" sufficient.
She keeps her job as a judge.

On July 16, 2005, a Pismo Beach police officer saw Judge Bernard J.
Schwartz, 45, swerving all over the road. When pulled over, Schwartz
said, "Why don’t you run my license and then we can talk?" The officer
asked if Schwartz was trying to say that he was a police officer. "No,
I’m a judge," Schwartz responded.

With the conversation recorded on tape, Schwartz denied being under
the influence of alcohol and asked if he could just go to a hotel and
leave his car. "Is this really necessary, all this stuff we have to go
through?" Judge Schwartz asked.

After the officer determined the judge was drunk and began to arrest
him, Schwartz said, "But you know what this is going to do? This will
substantially impair my career." The officer responded, "If I let you go,
it could impair my career." The judge continued, "I know you guys are
doing your job, but this is not good for me, I’m running for election
next year and this is not a good time."

Judge Schwartz said: "There is no professional courtesy here anymore.
This is [expletive]. You guys come in and appear before me." The officer
responded, "We’re treating you about as fair as we can, same as everybody
else. What you are asking for is special treatment."

Judge Schwartz told the officers that he would lose his job if
convicted of driving under the influence. The Commission disagreed and
let him off with a "public censure." Judge Schwartz had already been
sentenced to three years probation and fined $1,609 for the DUI
conviction. Judge Schwartz at the time had a blood alcohol content of
0.18.

Source: Inquiry Concerning Judges Rushing and Schwartz (California
Commission on Judicial Performance, 6/8/2006)

Are you in need of DUI Lawyers in California?

May 26, 2012