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?

There are a couple of rules to the chemical test that must be followed by the police if the test is going to be valid and used as evidence against you.

First, you have to be under arrest to be asked to take one of the chemical tests. Secondly, you must also be advised that if you do not take a test your license will be suspended by the DMV for 1 year. At the DMV hearing the fact of your guilt or innocence are not relevant. Only whether is was a valid arrest and that you rights and advisement’s were told to you. Of the over 180,000 (1995) persons arrested for a DUI in California only about 8% elect to refuse the test. Usually it’s because of an argument or some problem with the arrest situation. Once you refuse it is very unlikely that you will have the license returned by the DMV. Their return rate is less than 5%. Reasons why someone would have their license returned have been the person didn’t understand the officer because he didn’t speak English. Another person had it returned because wasn’t actually driving the car.

VC 23157.5- States you must be given a choice of one of two tests available. Blood or breath. Urine was eliminated in 2000. Except were drugs are suspected. Not for Alcohol.

The rules of the chemical tests are as follows:

A. The officer has three hours within the time of the stop to issue you a chemical test.

B. You do not have a right to an attorney prior to a chemical test.

C. An inability to complete a test is interpreted to be a failure.

D. If the officer suspects drugs then you will be asked to take either a blood or a urine and you will not have a choice.

Chemical Tests
The suspect has to be an arrest (People v Superior Ct. (Hawkins) (1972) The question of the amount of force used to “make” someone take a chemical test always comes up in classes. According to the court’s interpretation the police can use ‘reasonable’ force to have you take a test. The following is a case that went up and down in the court and would give you a ‘borderline’ case. Reasonable force – issues of force come up all the time in DUI arrests about being “required” to take a chemical test. (see case Newport Beach vs Hammer, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals)

Forced Blood Samples
(McGowan V City of San Diego (1989) CA state appeals court held that although the forced used to take blood against the defendant’s will was permissible for purposes of the criminal case, so that the evidence is not suppressed . . . this does not prevent civil action for use of excessive force . . the degree of force which ‘does not shock the conscience’ of the ordinary person but was it reasonable.

Procedure for Chemical Test – VC 23158

Breath Test

• Nothing in your mouth 15 minutes prior.
• Two readings between .02
• (.000 readings to the thousandths place is now acceptable)
• 2100 cubic centimeters of breath to one cubic centimeter of blood.

The breath machine is calibrated to a set number (as set by Calif. Admin. Code 7). This number (2100:1 – blood/breath) is good for approximately 8% of the population. Apparently from studies, most people have various ‘partition ratios’, depending on their own chemistry. As you can see this leaves about 46 percent lower than their breath test reading and about 46 percent higher than their breath test based on their own chemistry. The only way to find out one’s own ‘partition ration’ is to have a toxicologist test you for it.

Blood Test

This is the most accurate and one of the only ways you can have a sample saved and have your own independent test made to determine your BAC. Additional testing may be done by independent sources You have a right to have your own test done.

Urine Test

Purge your bladder, wait 20 minutes and go again. This is the least reliable with higher results due to having water levels tested instead of direct blood levels. Water level are in you system over a longer period of time in your body. And therefore the results ‘usually’ reflect alcohol that has been in you ‘water’ levels over a longer period of time, when compared to blood levels. Usually they are hight by 1.33 to 1.0

The Consequences of Refusing to Take A Chemical Test

Refusing or not completing a chemical test results in the following penalties by the DMV:

• 1st Refusal: loss of license for 1 years
• 2nd refusal: second refusal in 7 years 2 year revocation

If you refused a chemical test for a DUI you will need a California DUI Lawyer.

LAWS CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION 2005 YEAR

If you have been arrested for drunk driving you will need a California DUI Lawyer.

New California Laws

From AAA Magazine, January 1999

New California Laws – 2005

Who’d have thought it? Vehicle license fees go
down.

The votes are in the laws have been replaced if damaged The motorist
passed. The California Legislature has must carry proof of proper
installation. hammered out an updated version of the state’s Vehicle
Code. (Get this: Over 10 additions were made to the Vehicle Code about
transporting kitchen grease!) Some changes that affect California drivers
include lower vehicle license fees, extending the stoplight camera
program for red-light runners, and a measure that helps protect money
designated for highway use from being diverted to other projects. Here
are some highlights:

Saving money

A 25 percent reduction in the vehicle license fee, collected at the
time you register your car, goes into effect January 1. The fee could be
reduced further in the future if certain state General Fund conditions
are met. Assembly Bill (AB) 2797.

Continued enforcement

Stoplight cameras that help catch red-light runners are now permanent.
A new law repeals the January 1, 1999, sunset date for “automated
enforce-ment devices” at traffic control signals. Senate Bill (SB)
1136.

Payment options for some

People who face hardship in paying traffic infraction fines soon can
be sentenced to community service instead. The courts will have the
discretion to determine what consti-tutes a financial hardship. AB
2197.

Don’t even think about it

No vehicle may be equipped with any device that can jam, scramble,
neutralize, disable, or otherwise interfere with a radar, laser, or any
other electronic device used by the police to measure speed. Not only is
using such devices illegal, but you can’t even purchase, possess, sell,
manufacture, or distribute them either. SB 1964.

Bothered by ultraviolet rays?

Motorists will be allowed to put UV ray blocking material on
front-side windows, but the material must be clear and must be removed
or

Keeping the roads safe

Large, noncommercial vehicles, such as RVs, are the focus of a
resolution requiring a study of whether vehicles 80 or more inches wide
and 80 or more inches high contribute to traffic accidents when driven in
the left lane on multilane freeways. Assembly Concurrent Resolution
187.

Protecting highway funds

A ballot measure passed by voters in November now places certain
restric-tions on the loan of revenue from fuel taxes to the state General
Fund. The restrictions include the requirement that the General Fund
repay the loan in full and during the same fiscal year in which it was
borrowed. This state Constitutional Amendment was approved by the voters
and is now in effect. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 30.

Stop!

A new law changes the penalty for people who knowingly flee from a
peace officer. Now, a minimum of six months in prison is required for
anyone who flees a peace officer. (The maximum time in prison for this
offense is one year.) AB 2066. The prison term for people who willingly
flee a peace officer, and in doing so cause a person serious injury or
death, is increased to three to five years. AB 1382.

All laws go into effect January 1, 1999. unless otherwise noted.
Nevada’s legislature meets in alternate years, and 1998 was not a
legislative year. Utah lows generally go into effect on July 1; the
July/August VIA will include a summary of new troffic laws for that
state. A digest of motoring laws, with more details and information, is
available at AAA district offices.

I want to search legislature for a bill listed below.

AB 2000 – Assembly Member Goldsmith + Coauthors: Assembly Members
Ackerman, Boland, Bowler
Vehicles: driving under the influence: arrests: penalties.

AB 3003 – Assembly Member Pringle
Driver’s license test: pilot program.

SB 636 – Senator Haynes
Vehicles: driver education.

SB 1972 – Senator Watson
Vehicles: driving-under-the-influence programs.

SB 726 – Committee on Transportation (Senators Kopp (Chairman), Ayala,
Johnston, Kelley, and Monteith)
Transportation: Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District: Santa Cruz
Regional

AB 2285 – Assembly Member Aguiar
Vehicles: crimes: punishments.

AB 2487 – Assembly Member Firestone
Vehicles: driver’s licenses.

AB 1501 – Assembly Member Bordonaro (Coauthor: Senator Mountjoy)
Motorized bicycles: electric motor: definition.

AB 1826 – Assembly Member Boland
Driving under the influence { felony }.

AB 2356 – Assembly Member Aguiar
Vehicles: driving under the influence: gross vehicular manslaughter.

AB 1985 – Assembly Member Speier (Principal coauthor: Senator
Leslie)
Driving under the influence: reckless driving.

AB 1088 – Assembly Member Morrow
Schools: driver training instruction.

AB 32 – Assembly Member Katz
Driving under influence: commercial motor vehicles.

SB 301 – Senator Tom Campbell
Vehicles: driver’s licenses: examinations.

AB 1604 – Assembly Member Brewer
Vehicles: motorcycles.

AB 341 – Assembly Member Knowles
Motor vehicle insurance.

AB 1568 – Assembly Member Thompson
Vehicle: theft.

AB 1301 – Assembly Member Kevin Murray
Vehicles: proof of financial responsibility.

AB 3020 – Assembly Member Bowler
Transportation.

SB 317 – Senator Solis
Crimes: {- auto -} {+ vehicle +}

AB 432 – Assembly Member Rainey
Liability: negligence.

AB 2251 – Assembly Member Poochigian
Stolen vehicles: enhanced punishment: liability.

AB 650 – Assembly Member Speier (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members
Bowen, Harvey, and Kevin)
Vehicles: financial responsibility.

SB 837 – Senator Lewis
Vehicles: driving under the influence: punishments.

AB 1560 – Assembly Member Gallegos
Vehicles: traffic violator schools.

AB 2691 – Assembly Member House
Vehicular manslaughter: fetus.

AB 2150 – Assembly Member Morrissey
Vehicles: crimes: penalties.

AB 2096 – Assembly Member Tucker
Alcoholic beverages: advertising.

AB 417 – Assembly Members Burton and Johnson
Driving-under-the-influence programs.

SB 1587 – Committee on Transportation (Senators Kopp (Chairman),
Ayala, Boatwright, Hayden, Johnston, Kelley, Monteith, Polanco, and

SB 414 – Senator Thompson (Coauthor: Senator Boatwright)
Vehicles: violations: fines.

SB 975 – Committee on Judiciary (Senators Calderon (Chair), Campbell,
Leslie, Lockyer, O’Connell, and Wright)
Maintenance of the Codes.

AB 164 – Assembly Member Knight
Pupils: truancy: driver’s licenses.

SB 905 – Senator Leslie
Automobile insurance: good driver discount.

SB 769 – Senator Lockyer
Crimes: sentencing.

SB 1694 – Senator Dills
Driver improvement: vehicle insurance.

SB 2001 – Senator O’Connell
Vehicles: crimes: school grounds.

AB 2408 – Assembly Member Granlund
Vehicles: fleeing a peace officer: penalties.

AB 2005 – Assembly Member Kevin Murray
Driving offenses: penalties: probation.

SB 833 – Senator Kopp
{- Traffic control devices: Automated enforcement system -} {+ Vehicles:
crimes: enforcement +} .

AB 2117 – Assembly Member Miller
Juvenile court commissioners.

AB 1445 – Assembly Member Baca
Juveniles {- : loitering and graffiti -}.

AB 2352 – Assembly Member Speier
Vehicles: driver’s licenses: expiration: fees.

AB 2331 – Assembly Member Goldsmith {+ (Coauthor: Assembly Member
Alpert) +}
Crime: graffiti.

AB 1855 – Assembly Member Sher
Air pollution: emission limits.

SB 1433 – Senator Peace
Motor vehicle insurance.

AB 2295 – Assembly Member Sweeney (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Thompson)
Graffiti.

SB 121 – Senators Thompson, Petris, and Russell
Criminal procedure: voluntary intoxication defense.

SB 1562 – Senator Greene
School facilities.

AB 3480 – Assembly Member Davis
Drinking and driving: driving under the influence: reports to the
Department of Motor Vehicles.

AB 2410 – Assembly Member McPherson (Coauthor: Senator Johnston)
Vehicles: hours of service: regulations.

SB 1579 – Senator Leonard
Vehicles: driving under the influence: failure to appear.

AB 3074 – Assembly Member Boland
Juveniles: wards.

AB 1849 – Assembly Member Sher
Air pollution: emission limits.

AB 3350 – Assembly Member Knox
Sentencing: performance program.

AB 2240 – Assembly Member Battin (Principal coauthor: Senator
Leslie)
Vehicles: driving under the influence: fines and imprisonment.

ABX2 25 – Assembly Member Morrissey
Vehicles: equipment: unsafe operation.

AB 153 – Assembly Member Katz
Transportation.

AB 3316 – Assembly Member Tucker
Driving under the influence: treatment programs.

AB 964 – Assembly Member Katz
Vehicles: traffic violator schools.

AB 1869 – Assembly Member Katz
Transportation.

AB 1683 – Assembly Member Conroy (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Katz)
Public utilities: carriers.

SB 1162 – Senator Leslie
Vehicles: driver’s license suspension; driving under the influence.

AB 1999 – Assembly {- Member Knight -} {+ Members Knight and Morrissey
+}
Peace officer: fleeing.

SB 1367 – Senator O’Connell (Coauthor: Assembly Member
Bordonaro)
Vehicles: violations: fines.

SB 1198 – Senator Kopp
Vehicles: controlled substances.

ACR 96 – Assembly Member Katz
Bruce T. Hinman Memorial Freeway Interchange.

AB 2531 – Assembly Member Miller
Graffiti.

SB 1379 – Senator Peace
Arrest warrants.

SB 1405 – Senator Ayala
Vehicles: driving under the influence.

SB 253 – Senator Kelley
Vehicles: driving hours: emergencies.

AB 2930 – Assembly Member Escutia
Transportation.

SB 1402 – Senator Marks
Vehicles: driving under the influence: penalties.

AB 607 – Assembly Member Brulte
Insurance: motor vehicles.

AB 2740 – Assembly Members Ackerman, Isenberg, Baugh, Brewer, Conroy,
Morrissey, and Morrow
Vehicles: driving under the influence: programs.

ABX2 38 – Assembly Member Goldsmith
Minors: juvenile court jurisdiction.

AB 2686 – Assembly Member Kaloogian
Minors: juvenile court jurisdiction.

AB 2420 – Assembly Member Bowler
Vehicles.

AB 2418 – Assembly Member Woods
Vehicles: driving under the influence: penalties.

AB 1848 – Assembly Member House
Vehicles: commercial drivers: hours of service {+ : pilot program +}.

AB 129 – Assembly Member Rainey
Driving under the influence: assessments: Contra Costa County.

AB 498 – Assembly Member Horcher
Vehicles: slowing to view accident.

SB 2105 – Senator Hayden
Vehicles: tow trucks: operators.

SB 1807 – Senator Rosenthal
Automobile insurance.

AB 1637 – Assembly Member Richter
Vehicles: drivers: hours of service.

AB 232 – Assembly Member Kevin Murray
Prior conviction: burden of proof.

AB 1304 – Assembly Member Bowler
Vehicles: driver’s licenses: suspension.

SB 1005 – Senator Dills
Vehicles: driver training.

AB 1113 – Assembly Member Rogan (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Napolitano)
Controlled substances: {-

AB 851 – Assembly Member Hoge
Equine activities: limitation of liability.

SB 31 – Senator Leslie
Negligence.

SB 323 – Senator Kopp
Records.

AB 2839 – Assembly Member Hoge
Department of Motor Vehicles: records: Indian tribes.

AB 2723 – Assembly Member Hawkins
{- Habeas corpus -} {+ Juvenile court law +}.

SB 36 – Senator Killea
Vehicles: registration fees: vehicle-theft crimes.

AB 1752 – Assembly Member Knowles
Causes of action: insurance rates.

AB 1052 – Assembly Member Tucker
{- Satellite wagering -} {+ Equine training and racing: protective
headgear +}.

AB 2641 – Assembly Member Bowler
Motor vehicles: windshields and windows.

AB 918 – Assembly Member Cunneen
Sentencing.

SB 1263 – Senator Dills
Vehicles: traffic violator schools.

SB 185 – Senator Kopp
Public utilities: carriers.

SB 1070 – Senator Calderon
Rental cars.

SB 240 – Senator Ayala
Vehicles: towing: impoundment.

ACR 3 – Assembly Member Hannigan
Vic Fazio Freeway.

SB 2008 – Senator Mountjoy
Department of Motor Vehicles: English language.

AB 3470 – Committee on Judiciary (Assembly Members Morrow (Chairman),
Alby, Battin, Baugh, Bowen, Goldsmith, House, Kaloogian,
Maintenance of the Codes.

AB 2703 – Assembly Member Bowler
Motor carriers: incentive programs.

SB 772 – Senator Hurtt {+ (Coauthors: Senators Haynes and Lewis)
+}
Air pollution: south coast district: trip reduction plans.

AB 257 – Assembly Member Speier (Coauthors: Assembly Members Alpert,
Kuehl, and Willard Murray)
Family law: support.

SB 768 – Senators O’Connell, Ayala, Johannessen, Kelley, Leslie,
Monteith, Polanco, and Thompson
Highways: signs: services available.

AB 2370 – Assembly Member Takasugi
Vehicles: carpool lanes: prohibitions.

AB 2623 – Assembly Member Kuehl
Vehicles: carpool lanes: ZEV.

SB 1511 – Senator Monteith
Peace officer: fleeing.

AB 2360 – Assembly Member Morrissey
Vehicles: firefighting equipment: definition.

AB 2357 – Assembly Member Morrow (Principal coauthors: Assembly
Members Hauser and Mazzoni)
Liability.

AB 1493 – Assembly Member Valerie Brown
Vehicles: speed limit: rural community.

AB 700 – Assembly Member Cunneen
Liability: public agencies and employees.

SB 968 – Senator Johnston
Insurance: good drivers.

AB 1591 – Assembly Member Hannigan
Healthy Start Support Services for Children Act.

SCR 63 – Senators Thompson, Alquist, Beverly, Boatwright, Calderon,
Dills, Greene, Kopp, Lockyer, Maddy, Marks, Mello, and
Justice Joseph A. Rattigan Building.

AB 2969 – Assembly Member Olberg
Liability: public agencies and employees.

AB 875 – Assembly Member Johnson
Plea bargaining.

SB 1207 – Senator Hughes
Rental of passenger vehicles.

AB 2407 – Assembly Member Granlund
Controlled substances: plea bargaining.

AB 75 – Assembly Member Morrow
Unauthorized entry.

AB 2866 – Assembly Member Speier
Car rentals: damages waiver.

AB 770 – Assembly Member Aguiar
Vehicles: autobrokers.

SCR 28 – Senators Beverly and Rogers
50th anniversary of V-E Day.

AB 1228 – Assembly Member Martinez
Vehicles: parking and standing violations.

AB 2693 – Assembly Member Willard Murray
Peace officers: California State University.

AB 3057 – Assembly Member Hauser
Vehicles: notices to appear.

SB 501 – Senator Calderon
Air pollution: vehicles: retirement.

AB 2960 – Assembly Member Firestone
Postsecondary Education: Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education
Reform Act of 1989.

AB 135 – Assembly Member Rainey
Vehicles: registration fees.

AB 2288 – Assembly Member Aguiar
Motor vehicle speed contest: motor vehicle removal.

SB 788 – Senator Alquist
{- Elections: Budget Act of 1994: augmentation: deficiencies -} {+
Driver’s licenses: visas: +}

AB 2931 – Assembly Member Vasconcellos
Drug and alcohol abuse.

AB 2924 – Assembly Member Boland
Vehicles: proof of financial responsibility.

AB 1400 – Assembly Member Willie Brown
Vehicles: safety belts.

SB 1111 – Senator Ayala
Vehicles: abandonment: registration.

SB 526 – Senator Costa
Trademarks.

SB 1224 – Senator Mountjoy
Crimes: interstate jurisdiction.

SB 89 – Senator Alquist
1995-96 Budget.

AB 111 – Assembly Member Brulte
1995-96 Budget.

SB 1393 – Senator Thompson
1996-97 Budget.

AB 2049 – Assembly Member Caldera
1996-97 Budget.

AB 716 – Ass

Are you in need of a California DUI Lawyer?

Court OKs Use of Drunk-Driving Test

Law: State appeals panel rules that evidence obtained from hand-held
gauge is admissible, even without backup data.

By PAUL ELIAS, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

Los Angeles Times Saturday January 20, 1996
Home Edition
Part A, Page 18

VENTURA–A state appeals court has ruled that a hand-held gauge the
size of a personal radio can be used to convict drunk drivers, a decision
that could sound the death knell for a popular DUI defense.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal found that results of the preliminary
alcohol screening test that California Highway Patrol officers give to
suspected drunk drivers are admissible in court.

For five years, CHP officers have asked suspected drunk drivers to
blow into the Alco-Sensor to measure blood-alcohol levels at traffic
stops. Suspects are required to take more precise blood-alcohol tests,
usually administered at the nearest jail.

Defense attorneys have argued successfully in court that the sensor
should not be allowed as evidence because it was approved by lawmakers to
screen suspects and not as a tool to precisely determine the degree of a
driver’s intoxication.

But 2nd District justices said in a decision published this week that
juries can use the Alco-Sensor results to convict drivers, even without
more reliable backup tests.

“The Alco-Sensor is so important for the prosecution of drunken
driving,” said Ventura County Deputy Dist. Atty. Kevin DeNoce, who argued
the test case before the Court of Appeal.

DeNoce said admissibility of Alco-Sensor results will undermine a
popular defense argument that suspects’ alcohol-blood levels were below
the legal limit when stopped even though they were later found to exceed
it. That is because it takes time for alcohol to seep into the
bloodstream.

For instance, suspects measured with a blood-alcohol level of
0.08%–the standard for drunk driving–at the police station have
successfully argued that their level was significantly lower when they
were stopped.

In the Ventura County test case, CHP officers stopped Brian Keith
Bury, 24, as he drove his car slowly and erratically on the Ventura
Freeway two years ago. Bury submitted to two Alco-Sensor tests, which
indicated a blood-alcohol level of more than 0.17%.

At the County Jail, Bury refused to take any further tests. During
Bury’s trial, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr.
allowed the jury to consider the Alco-Sensor results.

A jury convicted Bury of drunk driving for the fifth time in five
years. He was sentenced to four years in prison. His attorneys appealed,
arguing that the Alco-Sensor was never intended to be used as a
prosecution tool.

Bury’s trial lawyer, Steven Powell, declined to comment. Bury’s
appellate attorney, Lauri Brown, did not return calls seeking
comment.

“The ruling doesn’t surprise me, given the political climate,” said
Ventura defense attorney Jay Johnson, who specializes in drunk driving
cases. “There are three crimes I tell my clients that they don’t want to
get convicted of: rape, child molestation and drunken driving, because
they are fighting an uphill battle against public sentiment.”

Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times, 1996.