Drunk Driving and Prop 213

Sunday, September 8, 1996
Home Edition
Section: Opinion Piece
Page: M-4

Drunk Drivers and Prop. 213;

By LINDA OXENREIDER
California State Chair
Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Letters to the Editor

Your article describing the tragic death of the Guth family by a
suspected drunken driver is a poignant reminder of how irresponsible and
dangerous drinking and driving can be (“A Bitter Irony,” Aug. 28).
Unbelievably, some drunk drivers break the law and then believe they
should also be entitled to compensation for their “pain and
suffering.”

Current law allows drunk drivers to sue law-abiding citizens for huge
monetary awards in addition to being compensated for medical and
out-of-pocket expenses after an accident–even in cases where they also
caused the collision.

This November, voters will have an opportunity to put a stop to this
abuse by voting for Proposition 213, sponsored by California Insurance
Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush. Proposition 213 will thwart the efforts
of these lawbreakers to get pain-and-suffering awards for their crimes,
while still protecting their right to be compensated for medical and
out-of-pocket expenses.

In 1995 alone, 1,343 people lost their lives to drunk drivers and
another 36,961 suffered injuries in collisions involving drunk drivers.
It is imperative that Californians not allow themselves to be victimized
by drunk drivers.

Unless otherwise indicated, these new laws become effective on January 1, 2007.

Cell Phones Operative July 1, 2008 Requires the use of hands-free wireless phones as of July 1, 2008, with limited exceptions.

Commercial Driver License Ensures immediate administrative driver licensing sanctions are imposed when any driver is operating a commercial vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .04% or greater.

Requires California to report convictions of commercial driver traffic violations to the home state of the commercial driver for sanctioning purposes. Establishes the following: A first conviction for driving any vehicle under the influence of drugs is cause for the disqualification of the commercial driving privilege for one year. A commercial driver who is convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, regardless of whether the violation occurred in a commercial vehicle or the driver’s personal vehicle, is subject to the disqualification of the commercial driving privilege for one year. A first conviction of gross vehicular manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter is cause for the disqualification of the commercial driving privilege for one year. Eliminates the authority for the issuance of a restricted commercial driver’s license when the driving privilege is suspended or because the driver or driver’s family has a serious health problem (does not prohibit the issuance of a restricted Class C or M license; thereby allowing the commercial driver to operate a non-commercial vehicle).

Driver License Removes the minimum age requirement for persons to consent to participate in the organ and tissue donor program.

Driver License Suspension Increases the mandatory driver’s license suspension period to ten months for persons convicted of a first offense of Driving Under the Influence of alcohol if the individual’s blood alcohol concentration level was .20% or greater, and the court orders an enhanced alcohol treatment program.

Driving Infraction Creates a new infraction for driving a motor vehicle while knowingly permitting a person to ride in the trunk. A passenger found guilty of riding in the trunk of a vehicle would be guilty of an infraction. Both the driver and passenger would be subject to fines pursuant to a specified schedule. A driver convicted of knowingly permitting passengers to ride in/on the trunk of a vehicle would receive one negligent operator point on his or her driving record.

Makes driving under age 21 with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.01% or greater a citable offense, and if convicted, the person would be guilty of an infraction subject to increased court fines. Currently subject to suspension under the Zero Tolerance Law. However, this would not be a point count, according to Vehicle Code §12810.

Emergency Vehicles Requires drivers to take specific precautionary actions on a highway when passing a stopped emergency vehicle when the emergency lights are activated. Makes it an infraction for failure to comply with those requirements.

Equipment of Vehicles Clarifies existing statute regarding the use of headlamps during darkness and/or inclement weather.

Graffiti and Vandalism Allows courts to impose increased driver license sanctions for graffiti and vandalism. Courts may now suspend a driver license for a period of up to two years, or delay issuing a license for a period of one to three years.

Ignition Interlock Device Prohibits a manufacturer of an ignition interlock device (IID) from furnishing information to any individual or entity that would allow modifications to be made that would allow it to be used in a manner that is contrary to its intended purpose. Prohibits the tampering of an IID by a service center or technician and prohibits reinstatement of the driving privilege until the DMV receives proof that the device has actually been installed. Requires DMV to verify installations on court ordered IID.

Mature Driver Improvement Course Revises the Mature Driver Improvement Program by increasing the maximum allowable course fee and by providing for a renewal course with reduced instructional time. Addresses comments of course participants who do not believe the full 400-minute course is necessary every three years for renewal purposes. Allows course providers
to charge a fee of up to $30 for either the initial or renewal course and providers indicate this fee increase is needed because costs have risen since the inception of the program in 1986. Requires DMV to establish standards and develop criteria and review each provider’s renewal course lesson plan to ensure it
meets the Mature Driver Improvement Course requirements.

Pull Notice Adds ambulance certificate holders to the current list of certificate holders who are required to participate in the department’s Pull Notice Program.

Reckless Driving/Racing Increases penalties for first conviction of reckless driving or engaging in a speed contest resulting in specified injuries to a person other than the driver. First-offenders would be subject to confinement in state prison or county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than 6 months, or by a fine of not less than $220 (reckless driving) or $500 (speed contest) nor more than $1000. The specified injuries which would incur these sentences are; loss of consciousness, concussion, bone fracture, protracted loss or impairment
of function of a bodily member or organ, wound requiring extensive suturing, serious disfigurement, brain injury, and/or paralysis.

School Bus Certificate Authorizes the California Highway Patrol to conduct a preliminary criminal and driver history check to determine the eligibility of an individual prior to issuing a special certificate authorizing the operation of a schoolbus, school pupil activity bus, youth bus, or a general public paratransit vehicle. Exempts school bus mechanics and driver trainees from having to obtain a school bus endorsement for the operation of the vehicle provided they are not engaged in the transportation of children.

Three-Tier Driver Assessment Project Requires the department to conduct a study of a Three-Tier Driver Assessment System, contingent upon receipt of grant money, and determine the effectiveness of the program in identifying functional impairments, reducing crashes, and prolonging safe driving years of all drivers regardless of age.

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

Source:

DMV Wins Drunk Driving Case

08/07 1825

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 7 (UPI S) — The California Supreme Court has
ruled (Thursday) that the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles can use
unsworn police and forensic lab reports to suspend the licenses of
drunken drivers. Plaintiff Richard Lake had contended the DMV did not
present sufficient evidence to prove that he was driving with a blood
alcohol content of .08 or above.

If you would like the Supreme Court’s decision (you need Adobe
Acrobat) get it here:

Lake v. Reed 8/7/97 SC

Go to Supreme Court and then to Court Opinions

SACRAMENTO — DMV Information Sold Illegally, State Audit Finds
Agency Also Reaped Profits by Overcharging Clients

Thursday, July 3, 1997 · Page A19 ©1997 San
Francisco Chronicle

Greg Lucas, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Sacramento

The Department of Motor Vehicles illegally sold the confidential
addresses of private citizens, according to a new state audit that also
found the agency overcharged nearly $100 million to companies that made
legitimate requests for driver and vehicle records.

The state audit, conducted at the request of the Legislature, found
that over the past six years the DMV has dramatically overstated its
costs for selling information to private companies while giving the same
information to government agencies for free.

While the excessive fees were paid primarily by banks, insurance
companies and lawyers, they are likely to be reflected in the rates those
firms charge customers.

Perhaps the most startling revelation in the 35-page audit was that
the DMV sold Safeway Inc. a list of 1,000 confidential addresses of
drivers parked in the lots of two rival supermarkets. During the $5,000
transaction, the DMV failed to obtain the required written promise from
Safeway not to use the information for direct marketing.

“The department did not comply with the law,” the audit said of the
Safeway transaction. “(It) may have jeopardized the privacy of
individuals who were the subjects of the information and exposed them to
the risk of unwanted or unsolicited contact.”

Debra Lambert, a spokeswoman for Safeway, said the company used the
information for marketing research. “It’s a statistical type of analysis.
What it does is help define trading areas around our stores and around
competitor stores. It’s a data-gathering exercise.

“It’s only addresses,” she added. “We keep the data to ourselves. It
is never divulged outside of the company.”

The DMV said the October 1994 Safeway transaction was one
“deficiency” in the 50 to 70 requests for information studied by state
auditors. Auditors, however, said they examined only a fraction of the
“tens of thousands” of transactions conducted by the department over the
past six years.

Under a 1990 law, residential addresses maintained by the DMV are
confidential unless the requester proves the information is needed for a
legitimate business reason. Even then, no names can be revealed, and
purchasers must promise not to use it for direct marketing.

An “alert auditor” stumbled across the Safeway transaction while
going over the DMV’s books to see whether the prices charged private
companies for driver and vehicle information reflected the department’s
costs of providing the information, said State Auditor Kurt Sjoberg.

Overall, the audit found that the department had “significantly
overestimated” its costs — creating a profit of $99 million over the
past six years at the expense of insurance companies, lawyers, banks,
credit unions and trucking firms that buy information from the DMV.

And, the audit said, since the costs were calculated incorrectly in
the first place and have not been corrected in six years, the department
cannot “assure the fairness of its fees nor can it properly identify or
manage product profitability.”

Said Sjoberg in an interview:

“We were asked to see whether fees charged for information products
relate to costs of providing those products. The DMV has turned it into a
different discussion. They’re saying they should be able to charge
whatever the market will bear for a product the state has a monopoly
on.”

Profit is legal and necessary, the DMV said in its response to the
audit’s findings. Revenue is needed to defray the costs of providing
records on vehicle ownership, driver status, traffic accidents and
convictions to law enforcement and other government agencies for
free.

“Reducing the fees and therefore the profits currently charged could
shift the costs from fee paying customers, such as insurance companies,
to the general public through increased fees for driver licenses and
vehicle registrations,” the department concluded in its four-page
response to the audit.

Governor Pete Wilson and the DMV are trying to jack up those fees
anyway to fill a $41 million deficit in the sprawling agency’s
budget.

In his May revised budget plan, Wilson backs increasing vehicle
registration fees by $1 to $30 a year, increasing title transfer fees
from $10 to $15 and charging people whose licenses are suspended or
revoked $55 instead of $15 to have them reinstated.

Every owner of a vehicle — there are 27 million registered in the
state — will feel the $1 hit in registration fees.

The state estimates there are 3.8 million title transfers a year and
400,000 Californians requesting their licenses be reinstated.

The fee increases are needed, the GOP governor argues, because the DMV
is $41 million in the red.

Although the audit found that the prices some customers were paying
far exceeded the department’s costs, other charges for information were
dramatically less than actual costs. In one case, the audit found that
the department charged $70 for a statistical report costing $1,000.

Saturday, April 11, 1998

San Rafael — A Marin County judge ruled yesterday that the Department
of Motor Vehicles does not have to dismiss license suspensions faced by
suspected drunken drivers throughout the state.

Attorney Paul Burglin had argued that delays in the DMV’s license
revocation hearings had violated the rights of 10 of his Marin clients —
as well as the rights of drivers in similar circumstances across the
state.

Superior Court Judge Vernon Smith disagreed, however, saying that
although the law specifies that the DMV "shall hold a hearing” before a
license suspension takes effect, delays in those hearings don’t mean that
the agency has lost its jurisdiction. Drivers are issued temporary
licenses to use until the hearing takes place.

Although he represents people facing drunken-driving charges, Burglin
had also charged that the delays subvert the law’s intent: to keep
intoxicated motorists off the road by quickly suspending their licenses.

©1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A15

Are you in need of a California DUI Attorney?

DMV Hearing
Should Ya’ or Shouldn’t Ya’?

Anyone arrested for driving under the influence and has their license
taken has 10 days to schedule a hearing with their local DMV office (via
telephone or in person) and fight to have their license returned.

Of course you must have a ‘reason’ why you think the DMV should
reinstate your license. Sometimes licenses are returned for the smallest
of ‘reasons’ (box X is not checked).

In 2003-04 only 14% of the drivers have their license returned after
having a hearing.

You can though, have your license suspension ‘STAYED’. This means that
when you schedule to have a hearing from the DMV, your license suspension
will be temporarily put on hold and you will be given full privilges (the
automatic license suspension that would have gone into effect after 30
days after your stop will NOT go into effect) until the hearing and then
the merits of your case will be heard.

What are the issues at the DMV hearing?

One issue that is NOT on the table are hardship licenses. The DMV does
not issue these licenses for APS actions. What is on the table is:

1. Were you driving the car?

2. Were you legally stopped?

3. Were you legally arrested?

4. Did you take a test and was it legally administered?

5. Were your results .08 or above?

If you have any questions about the above or feel that your rights or
the procedures were not followed or observed that you should schedule a
hearing (lawyers charge on an average $750 – $1000 for the hearing and
$750 – $1000 for the court ($1,500 – $2,000 total).

August 02, 2004 02:01 PM US Eastern Timezone

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Aug. 2, 2004–More people are killed and
injured in alcohol-related collisions in California during August than in
any other month, according to an analysis by the Automobile Club of
Southern California.

The analysis looks at a five-year period from 1999-2003. During that
time, 618 persons were killed and 13,853 were injured statewide in
alcohol-related collisions in August, for a total of 14,471. July was
number two with 624 deaths and 13,732 injuries, for a total of 14,356.
February had the lowest number of deaths and injuries with 456 deaths and
11,293 injuries.

"Summer vacations and recreational activities often include alcohol
consumption," said Steven Bloch, senior research associate for the
Automobile Club of Southern California. "Everyone needs to be aware that
even one drink can negatively impact judgment. Too many people wrongly
feel that they are fine to drive when, in fact, their judgment, reaction
time and perspective are clouded by alcohol."

The Auto Club analysis also indicates that a motorist convicted of a
first-time DUI offense in California currently faces a total cost of
$12,116. The cost includes minimum fines, $468; penalties, $780; vehicle
towing and impound, $187; alcohol education class, $500; increase in auto
insurance, $7,300; victim restitution fund, $100; DMV license re-issue
fee, $125; booking, fingerprinting and photo fee, $156, and attorney and
legal fees, $2,500.

Bloch stressed that despite stricter laws and enforcement, as well as
increased education, the number of alcohol-related deaths and injuries is
on the rise. "Each of the past five years has seen a rise in the number
of people killed," Bloch said. "This follows 10 straight years of
declines."

Bloch also noted that the number of persons injured in alcohol-related
crashes decreased 2 percent in 2003 after rising for the previous three
years.

The Auto Club has produced an information pamphlet entitled "You
Drink. You Drive. You Lose." It is available at all 68 Auto Club offices
in Southern California.

Are you in need of a Southern California DUI Lawyer?

Supreme Court Will Not Review Rejection of Young
Driver’s Cough Syrup Defense

Thursday, April 21, 2005

By a MetNews Staff Writer

The state Supreme Court yesterday declined to review a January Court
of Appeal ruling that state law requiring suspension of the license of a
motorist under 21 years of age who drives with a blood alcohol
concentration in excess of 0.01 percent does not require proof the
underage driver consumed an alcoholic beverage illegally.

The First District Court of Appeal in December upheld an order
suspending the license of Karli Ann Bobus, who was 16 years of age when
she was pulled over two years ago on suspicion of drunk driving. The
court’s Div. Five ordered its ruling published in
January.

At their weekly conference yesterday, six Supreme Court justices voted
to deny Bobus’ petition for review. They also denied
her request that the Court of Appeal’s opinion be
depublished.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George was recused and did not participate in
consideration of the petition and depublication request.

The First District justices had questioned Bobus’
claim that she had not been drinking, even though she was out with
friends who had been, and that the .022 percent reading on her blood
alcohol test was the result of having consumed a capful of cough syrup.
But even if she were telling the truth, Presiding Justice Barbara J.R.
Jones wrote, the suspension was still valid because cough syrup is a
“liquid containing alcohol†and thus falls
within the statutory definition of an alcoholic beverage.

The California Highway Patrol officer who stopped Bobus on the freeway
late on the night of Nov. 30, 2002 testified at a Department of Motor
Vehicles hearing that he pulled Bobus over because she was weaving from
lane to lane, that her eyes were bloodshot and her speech slurred, and
that she smelled of alcohol.

Marin Superior Court Judge Lynn Duryea upheld the DMV ruling
suspending Bobus’ license and denied her petition for
writ of mandate under Vehicle Code Sec. 23136. The statute says
“it is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 years
who has a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater…to
drive a vehicle†and that any such driver is guilty of a
violation if “the trier of fact finds that the person
had consumed an alcoholic beverage and was driving a vehicle with a
blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater.â€

Even if Bobus was not drinking with her friends, Duryea reasoned, she
violated the law because “a minor can maim or kill if
they drank cough syrup or if they drank beer.â€

Jones, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the trial judge
“reasonably could have found it not believable that
Bobus’s visibly pronounced symptoms were caused by a
single capful of cough syrup†and instead reached
“the common sense conclusion that Bobus, like her
friends, had been drinking.â€

In any event, Jones said, the trial judge correctly ruled that it is a
violation of the statute for an underage driver to operate a vehicle with
a blood alcohol level above the threshold even if the only
alcohol-containing liquid that the driver has consumed is cough
syrup.

The presiding justice, noting that Bobus’ counsel
conceded that cough syrup is an alcoholic beverage under the Vehicle Code
definition, rejected the argument that the Legislature intended to
penalize underage driving after alcohol consumption only when the
beverage was consumed illegally, that is, when it is an alcoholic
beverage as defined in the liquor control statutes rather than under the
more expansive Vehicle Code definition.

“The legislative history of section 23136 shows the
Legislature had a more focused goal when it enacted the
section,†Jones wrote, which was to alleviate the
“untold grief and suffering,†as well as
high insurance costs, resulting from the large number of accidents
involving underage drinking drivers.

Jones went on to say that while the statute by its terms applies only
to drivers who consume an alcoholic beverage, there is no requirement
that the DMV make a specific finding of consumption in an administrative
suspension proceeding. The statutory elements of proof at the hearing,
the presiding justice explained, are limited to reasonable cause for the
stop, lawful detention, and driving with a blood alcohol level at or
above the 0.01 percent, or in the case of a driver over 21, 0.08 percent,
threshold.

The case is Bobus v. Department of Motor Vehicles.

Copyright 2005, Metropolitan News Company

UPDATED:

License Suspension Linked to Medicine Upheld

Posted on Thu, Apr. 21, 2005

By DAVID KRAVETS

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the
one-year driver’s license suspension handed to a 16-year-old motorist
police pulled over after she allegedly ingested a capful of cough
medicine to battle a cold.

The justices upheld a 1993 California law in which motorists under 21
automatically lose driving privileges for a year even if a trace amount
of alcohol is detected in their blood. The outcome also clarified for the
first time that the source of alcohol does not have to be adult
beverages.

The motorist’s attorney argued that the zero-tolerance law was aimed
at minors drinking alcoholic beverages, not those legitimately taking
cough syrup — in this case allegedly a small amount of cough medicine
that was 26 percent alcohol.

”It is our position the Legislature never intended to yank a kid’s
license for a year simply for taking a normal dose of cough medicine for
a cold,” said Paul Burgin, the attorney for Karli Bobus, a Novato girl
who was 16 when pulled over in 2002.

An appeals court, while questioning whether Bobus was telling the
truth about what she drank, upheld Bobus’ license suspension in January.
The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled that ”a minor
can maim or kill if they drank cough syrup or if they drank beer.”

Bobus appealed that decision to California’s seven justices, who
upheld the suspension without comment.

The California Highway Patrol reported that Bobus, now 18, measured a
0.022 percent blood-alcohol level, the equivalent of roughly one beer’s
worth of alcohol.

The CHP said she was swerving and stuttering. She was not prosecuted
for drunken driving, which usually requires a blood-alcohol level of
about 0.08 percent.

Citing the appellate court’s ruling, state prosecutors urged the
Supreme Court to uphold Bobus’ license suspension.

”The Supreme Court considered the appeals court opinion and decided
it was well written and correct,” said Deputy Attorney General Raymond
Hamilton.

Burgin, meanwhile, said Bobus’ automobile insurance rates have
skyrocketed.

Under the appellate court’s decision, Burgin said, it could logically
be argued that minors could be charged for illegally possessing alcohol
simply by having a bottle of cough medicine, and that adults could
violate open container laws when driving with an opened bottle of cough
medicine.

The case is Bobus v. Department of Motor Vehicles, S131323.

Saturday, August 17, 1996
Orange County Edition
Section: Metro
Page: B-2
Community News Focus;

By: HOPE HAMASHIGE and BILL BILLITER

LA PALMA

Working the night shift, Police Officer Al Halstead says modestly, had
a lot to do with it.

But the Orange County Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving says it was "exemplary service" in the past year that led to his arrest of 41 drivers who were under the influence of alcohol.

Because of his achievement, the group honored Halstead at a recent City Council meeting, presenting him with one of its annual Deuce Awards for law enforcement.

Vicki Maciha, victim advocate for the local chapter, praised Halstead for "taking the offensive" against drunk drivers.

Halstead, 41, is a 16-year veteran of the La Palma Police Department.

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

By Steve Rubenstein
Tuesday, June 7, 2005

Officer Denny Galotti, seen here in a story ABC7 shot in 1992, was arrested after being taken to the hospital.

MARIN COUNTY – An off-duty California Highway Patrol officer was
arrested on suspicion of drunken driving after he lost control of his
motorcycle in western Marin County and collided with a bicyclist, the
Highway Patrol said Monday.

Officer Denis Gallotti, 43, a 22-year-veteran, was arrested at Santa
Rosa Memorial Hospital after exhibiting signs of intoxication following
the crash Sunday afternoon on Point Reyes-Petaluma Road near Nicasio
Valley Road.

Gallotti suffered internal injuries, and the bicyclist, Samuel
McMillen 50, of Mill Valley, received several fractures. He was in
serious condition at Kaiser Hospital in Terra Linda, Lt. Charles
McLaughlin said.

Are you in need of a California Drunk Driving Lawyer?