June 30, 2007

California Drunk Driving / D.U.I. Checkpoint Nets One Arrest

Santa Clarita Sheriff’s Station conducted a D.U.I. Sobriety checkpoint Friday from 7pm through 3am Saturday morning. The checkpoint was conducted on eastbound Lyons Avenue, east of Wheeler Road. There were a total of 882 vehicles that passed through the checkpoint. Of those, 832 vehicles were screened. Seven vehicles were pulled off the line where the drivers received further California DUI field sobriety testing.

One of those drivers was arrested for California DUI - driving under the influence of alcohol / drunk driving at the California DUI checkpoint.

June 30, 2007

DETROIT Michigan

Michigan introduced new legislation to include all DUI / DWI /drunk driving incidents that occurred in the United States when prosecuting a Michigan driver.

If passed, the legislation would allow prior DUI / DWI / drunk driving convictions in other states to be taken into consideration and may be used to increase the punishment if the person is prosecuted in Michigan for drunken driving.

The legislator does not want Michigan to be known as a safe harbor for drunk drivers.

California DUI lawyer news

June 30, 2007

BAKERSFIELD, California

This holiday weekend, California DUI officers will be out in full force looking to catch California drunk drivers.

This weekend, officers from all of the law enforcement agencies in Kern County will be working.

The Avoid 18 program reminds drivers to do their part. In addition to increased patrol officers, officers will again be setting up California DUI checkpoints.

DUI award for most arrests

DUI Police Officer Ed Koczan makes one DUI arrest on the average of every 2.6 hours he patrols.

"We keep track of our own stats, but to hear them together like that ... I didn't realize the numbers," the top South Bend Indiana DUI officer said. Koczan, along with three other officers in St. Joseph County, were honored Friday morning during a news conference for being top officers when it comes to DUI arrests in the past quarter.
An enthusiastic crowd of community leaders, family members and law enforcement officials crowded the room at the city's Commerce Center, and nodded approvingly when the official figures on arrests and citations were read. "To be recognized today is a great thing."

June 29, 2007

LOS ANGELES, California

Vivica A. Fox purportedly called a California Highway Patrol officer a "racist white cop" during her California DUI arrest, according to a CHP report.

The 42-year-old actress, who is black, was pulled over in March after passing a CHP officer who said her Cadillac was doing 80 mph (129 kph) and weaving in its lane on the Hollywood Freeway.
The officer noticed that Fox's eyes were red and watery and she had a "strong odor" of alcohol, according to the report.

After she allegedly failed a series of California DUI field sobriety tests, the officer arrested Fox for investigation of a California DUI / driving under the influence / drunk driving.

"Fox began to walk away, yelling at my partner, 'Brother, help a sister, are you going to let this racist white cop do this... well, are you?'" according to the report.
The arresting officer is identified as Officer Laubscher and his partner Officer De Alba.
Fox continued to speak in a "condescending manner" as she was placed in the patrol car, the report said.
She was taken to the Van Nuys jail, where a breath test was conducted but had to be stopped when she "burped quite loudly," the report said.
Breath tests indicated her blood-alcohol level was greater than .08 percent, California's legal limit for a driver.

She was charged with two misdemeanor counts of California DUI / driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit. Her arraignment is scheduled for July 19. If convicted, Fox could face six months in jail and a $1,000 + California DUI fine. Fox has appeared in such films as "Kill Bill: Vol. 1," "Soul Food" and "Independence Day."

Lindsay Lohan may be facing a cocaine charge to go along with her alleged California DUI.

Someone apparently leaked an alleged report claiming the troubled actress had cocaine in her system and a blood-alcohol level nearly double the legal limit after the accident.

But the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office is still awaiting toxicology results and no charges have been filed against the 20-year-old Mean Girls star.

On Memorial Day weekend, she allegedly plowed her Mercedes over a curb and into some trees. Police said they discovered a "usable amount" of a substance believed to be cocaine on the scene of the crash. Two days later, Lohan reportedly went to Promises Malibu to sober up.

Lindsay reportedly spent the first stage of her treatment detoxing from alcohol and narcotics, including the painkiller OxyContin, and then would receive intense counseling to avoid using again. Lindsay was expected to check out of rehab earlier this week, but Lindsay may be extending her stay. She cancelled her much-hyped 21st birthday celebration originally scheduled to be a multiday blowout in Las Vegas next week. We hope she gets better.

La Salle County sheriff's deputies likely saw red after a disturbance at Hideout Tavern in rural Sandwich, Illinois led to a DUI suspect damaging a police car and spitting blood in the face of an arresting officer.
Bryant V. Pawson was arrested at 2:50 a.m. Saturday for allegedly DUI / drunk driving / driving under the influence of alcohol, illegal transportation of alcohol, leaving the scene of an accident with property damage, felony aggravated battery and felony criminal damage to state-supported property.

Deputies were handling a disturbance at the Hideout Tavern when a vehicle driven by Pawson struck a parked vehicle and left the scene. He was stopped by police south of the tavern.

Pawson allegedly had two open containers of alcohol in plain view inside the vehicle. After being handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a squad car, Pawson reportedly became violent and kicked both back windows out. While being restrained by deputies, Pawson allegedly spit blood in the face of an officer.
Pawson was taken to La Salle County Jail, where he is being held without bond but with blood.

A CHP lieutenant allegedly aggressively promoted his daughter's business to companies seeking California Highway Patrol contracts he oversaw, signed a state purchase order for a deal involving her firm and listed himself as her venture's sole contact in state tax records, according to allegations in warrants used to search the officer's home and bank.
The CHP started scrutinizing Lt. Gregory Williams after issues relating to his purported role in awarding $600,000 in CHP license plate scanning system deals. Investigators subsequently discovered, the search warrant alleges, that key e-mails were deleted from Williams' police computer and that videos he made of scanning system field tests had gone missing.
CHP Sgt. Angela Ditzenberger outlined details of those allegations in sworn statements used to obtain four search warrants in January.

Censored versions of those warrants were unsealed Thursday after a four-month legal battle to make them public. The California Supreme Court rejected a last-minute bid by Williams' lawyers to keep them sealed.
Williams, Ditzenberger alleged, "negotiated, influenced, recommended and/or co-signed contracts on behalf of the CHP that directly and/or indirectly involved a company called Miner Fabrication, owned by his daughter Krystal and son-in-law, Chad Miner."
Since the January searches, the CHP has recommended to the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office that Williams be charged with a felony conflict of interest. The district attorney is still reviewing that recommendation, said spokeswoman Lana Wyant.
Williams has made no public comment since being put on administrative leave last November, though his daughter has said that neither she nor her father did anything wrong. Christopher Wing, a Sacramento attorney who represents Williams, declined to comment Thursday, saying he had not received nor read the warrants.
A CHP person would not say whether the deleted e-mail or missing videos were recovered.
CHP officers use license plate scanning systems to identify stolen vehicles automatically, without having to manually enter each plate.
One of the search warrants states that a month before officers raided his house, Williams had his CHP union attorney give an assistant chief a package of original scanning system documents he had kept at his home.
At the time, Williams had "primary oversight" for the scanning program, Ditzenberger alleged in her search-warrant application. She cited documents, witness statements and e-mails suggesting that Williams favored one Tennessee vendor, PIPS Technology Inc., over rivals and that he had been in close contact with PIPS since 2004.
During that time, PIPS hired Miner Fabrication to supply metal brackets that attach the scan systems to patrol car light bars. PIPS also used Miner as a small-business agent that resold its systems to the CHP. State officials interviewed by the CHP said they were unaware of the Williams family link to Miner Fabrication and that Williams did not disclose it, according to the search warrants.
Records for Williams' state- issue Nextel cellular telephone account also show he contacted Miner Fabrication multiple times in one week in May 2005 during bidding for a CHP license plate scanning system contract.
A witness whose name was redacted from the documents told the CHP that Williams "knew the contents of all the bids received by fax because (the witness) discussed them with him throughout the process." Miner Fabrication got the $101,000 contract a month later.
The unsealed documents also allege:
• Williams recommended to state officials strategies designed to steer contracts to Miner Fabrication and avoid Department of General Services bid procedures.
• Though a rival company called Home Electronics submitted a slightly lower bid, Miner Fabrication was awarded another $12,331 CHP contract for police antennas in November 2006 before officials canceled it as the conflict-of-interest probe continued.
• Williams attended seminars in California and Nevada and "promoted PIPS Technology systems" while on CHP assignment.
• Several witnesses, whose names and jobs were redacted from the documents, told CHP officers "they heard statements by Lt. Williams that they believed showed favoritism to PIPS Technology" during the CHP field testing of the systems.
• Williams told CHP officials that he might have a conflict of interest. He was put on leave that same day.
• An electronic folder of Williams' e-mail exchanges with PIPS Technology was cleared from CHP computers. The CHP did not shut down his mail until Dec. 1, four days after he was put on leave.
When a CHP investigator contacted PIPS Technology, an executive with the company agreed to turn over all documents describing its financial links to Miner Fabrication.

California drunk driving suspect Shot, Killed in Costa Mesa

A DUI suspect was fatally shot in Costa Mesa at the end of a pursuit by Newport Beach police officers.

The shooting happened about 1 a.m. at Cambridge Circle and Aliso Avenue.

The California DUI / California Drunk Driving suspect allegedly used his vehicle to ram an officer’s patrol car.

Steve Foley's California DUI Lawyer ready?

A state appeals court yesterday ruled a driver who is hung over from using cocaine can be considered impaired / DUI even if the drug is no longer in her or his system.

The legal meaning of "under the influence" is expanded. A driver, who had taken cocaine but was not intoxicated when police stopped him, was ruled to still be a danger to other drivers. While the cocaine was no longer active it was the "proximate cause of his impaired behavior," the judges found.
"While the defendant was not 'high,' he was physically impaired," wrote Appellate Division Judge Thomas Lyons in a nine-page opinion, joined by Judges Ariel Rodriguez and Jack Sabatino. "As a result of ingesting cocaine, defendant's condition was such that his normal physical coordination was impaired so as to render him a danger to others on the highway."
Thiscould have an impact on alcohol-related DUI cases. None knew of a similar decision elsewhere in the country.
Now, they said, it could be possible for a person who had been drinking one night to be charged the next day if he or she had severe hangover symptoms.
"The potential impact is enormous," said John Tumelty, who represented the driver, David Franchetta, in the case. "Where do you draw the line? Even though a guy is not high and a drug is not active in the guy's system, if he's tired and sluggish and hung over from previous use, does that makes him under influence? If they say a drug hangover makes you guilty, what about an alcohol hangover?"
The law has traditionally been interpreted to mean a person is under the influence while a substance is pharmacologically active, said Jeffrey Gold, one of the state's leading experts in DUI law.
"The legislature didn't say hangover," Gold said. "They are really painting with a wide brush here to get as many people as possible. It's one more step to getting people off the road who are using drugs."
Richard Saferstein, the former head of the New Jersey State Police crime lab, who testified for the defense in the case, said he could possibly see the definition of "influence" covering more unusual circumstances, like a person having an LSD flashback long after taking the drug.
Vincent Molitor, assistant Cape May County prosecutor, said he was pleased with the decision and said was not concerned about widespread application of the ruling to drunk driving / DUI cases.

The statute covering the revocation of Nevada licenses is NRS 483.460:

NRS 483.460 Mandatory revocation of license, permit or privilege to drive; period of revocation; tolling of period of revocation during imprisonment; eligibility for restricted license; action to carry out court's order.
1. Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the Department shall revoke the license, permit or privilege of any driver upon receiving a record of his conviction of any of the following offenses, when that conviction has become final, and the driver is not eligible for a license, permit or privilege to drive for the period indicated:
(a) For a period of 3 years if the offense is:
(1) A violation of subsection 2 of NRS 484.377.
(2) A violation of NRS 484.379 that is punishable as a felony pursuant to NRS 484.3792.
(3) A violation of NRS 484.3795 or a homicide resulting from driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance or resulting from any other conduct prohibited by NRS 484.379, 484.3795 or 484.37955.
Ê The period during which such a driver is not eligible for a license, permit or privilege to drive must be set aside during any period of imprisonment and the period of revocation must resume upon completion of the period of imprisonment or when the person is placed on residential confinement.
(b) For a period of 1 year if the offense is:
(1) Any other manslaughter, including vehicular manslaughter as described in NRS 484.3775, resulting from the driving of a motor vehicle or felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used, including the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.
(2) Failure to stop and render aid as required pursuant to the laws of this State in the event of a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death or bodily injury of another.
(3) Perjury or the making of a false affidavit or statement under oath to the Department pursuant to NRS 483.010 to 483.630, inclusive, or pursuant to any other law relating to the ownership or driving of motor vehicles.
(4) Conviction, or forfeiture of bail not vacated, upon three charges of reckless driving committed within a period of 12 months.
(5) A violation of NRS 484.379 that is punishable pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 484.3792 and the driver is not eligible for a restricted license during any of that period.
(6) A violation of NRS 484.348.
(c) For a period of 90 days, if the offense is a violation of NRS 484.379 that is punishable pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of NRS 484.3792.
2. The Department shall revoke the license, permit or privilege of a driver convicted of violating NRS 484.379 who fails to complete the educational course on the use of alcohol and controlled substances within the time ordered by the court and shall add a period of 90 days during which the driver is not eligible for a license, permit or privilege to drive.
3. When the Department is notified by a court that a person who has been convicted of a violation of NRS 484.379 that is punishable pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of NRS 484.3792 has been permitted to enter a program of treatment pursuant to NRS 484.37937, the Department shall reduce by one-half the period during which he is not eligible for a license, permit or privilege to drive, but shall restore that reduction in time if notified that he was not accepted for or failed to complete the treatment.
4. The Department shall revoke the license, permit or privilege to drive of a person who is required to install a device pursuant to NRS 484.3943 but who operates a motor vehicle without such a device:
(a) For 3 years, if it is his first such offense during the period of required use of the device.
(b) For 5 years, if it is his second such offense during the period of required use of the device.
5. A driver whose license, permit or privilege is revoked pursuant to subsection 4 is not eligible for a restricted license during the period set forth in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, whichever applies.
6. In addition to any other requirements set forth by specific statute, if the Department is notified that a court has ordered the revocation, suspension or delay in the issuance of a license pursuant to title 5 of NRS, NRS 176.064 or 206.330, chapter 484 of NRS or any other provision of law, the Department shall take such actions as are necessary to carry out the court's order.
7. As used in this section, “device” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 484.3941.

The highlighted portions of the statute show a revocation for a DUI offense, but the offense has to be “a violation of NRS 484.379”, not a generic DUI. In other words, there is no provision for revoking a Nevada DL for a violation of a DUI statute from another state.

The case of Krahn v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety, 108 Nev. 1015, 842 P.2d 728 (1992) held that a violation of a federal DUI statute didn’t trigger the revocation because it wasn’t a violation of NRS 484.379. This same argument sgould apply to DUI convictions from other jurisdictions if a case were taken up on appeal.

June 28, 2007

A woman takes a plea deal, admitting to killing a man while driving under the influence - but it is not your typical DWI/ DUI.

Police say 52-year-old Darlene Kawczak of Feura Bush was driving her SUV last July, just before 11 o'clock in the morning, when she hit a bicyclist on Route 32 in Bethlehem. The victim, Joel Melnikoff, died at the scene.

It took a while for attorneys on both sides to come to an agreement on the case, because they say a popular sleep aid may have had a hand in it.
Tearful in Albany County Court Thursday, Darlene Kawczak pleads guilty to vehicular manslaughter. It is a charge that normally sees a maximum sentence of two-and-a-third to seven years in prison. But Kawczak will spend only six months in jail, and five years on probation - part of an unusual plea deal.
"Normally someone wouldn't be pleading to this sentence - but because of the various circumstances, that's what we decided was the most appropriate," says the Chief Assistant District Attorney.

Those circumstances surround what happened the night before the accident. Prosecutors say Kawczak drank five or six beers, then took a dose of the popular sleep aid "Ambien." But according to reports, that "dose" turned out to be a "double-dose," leading to tragedy the next morning.
"While I think there have been DWI arrests involving the use or misuse of Ambien, to my understanding, there have not been any other cases that have resulted in someone's death," Harris says.
Because of that, among other factors, attorneys on both sides say it was difficult to determine the most appropriate course of action.
"She took the breathalyzer test at the Bethlehem Police Department, it rang up zero - so, there were gonna' be some potential difficulties, that proof, if it went to trial," says Andrew Safranko, Kawczak's attorney.
As another part of her deal, Kawczak will work with the "Albany County Stop DWI" program, teaching about the possible dangers of using drugs like Ambien.

Seekonk musician joins anti-drunk driving campaign

June 28, 2007

There remains a connection between rock music and alcohol isn't always a flattering one: Images of intoxicated artists tripping over instruments and fumbling song lyrics while drunk fans flail around in mosh pits may come to mind.But Seekonk resident and musician Phil Ayoub is helping to forge a different relationship between alcohol and music through his involvement with the Ground Control drunk-driving prevention campaign.The campaign was started last year by Ron Bellanti, founder and president of Beverly-based Illumina records, after a 15-year-old girl died in his arms as the result of a drunk driving crash.Ground Control spreads the drunk driving prevention message through a number of programs that leverage the power of music and art, including music-oriented presentations in schools, music festivals, fashion shows, a "Rock & Roll Circus," an art series with the anti-drunk driving message at its core and compilation CDs."What better way to create awareness or get somebody's attention than with music or the arts?" said Brooke Anido, vice president of operations at Illumina Records.

Ayoub, 33, will appear on both the Providence and Boston "Rockers for Life" compilation CDs, which fund Ground Control's programs and media campaigns while giving local artists greater exposure.The CDs are sold through Discarc.com and Newbury Comics as well as through the musicians featured on them; each musician is required to buy 50 copies of the CD with the option to sell them or give them away.Artists are promoted on the Illumina Records Web site, the "Rockers for Life" MySpace page, as well as posters and other promotional material.They are selected for inclusion on the CDs based on their desire to help as well as the quality of their music.
"This is not a talent competition," Anido said. "We're looking for talented people, of course, but at the same time we're looking for people with good hearts."Ayoub - a full-time musician in the Americana/pop/rock genre who cites his influences as U2, Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan - was contacted by Illumina Records through his MySpace page. Although he hasn't been personally affected by drunk driving, Ayoub said he was immediately interested in the cause."It's a two-fold thing," he said. "It gets my music out there, which is sort of of secondary importance to helping out the charity. Any sort of good cause, if I can be a part of it musically or any other way, I will."Ayoub has taken part in charity efforts to benefit several causes, including multiple sclerosis, homeless pets, and the Jimmy Fund. As a musician performing in locations where liquor typically flows freely, he said the issue of drunk driving is particularly relevant.
"It's difficult because sometimes if I'm onstage or talking to people in the crowd, I sort of get a sense for how drunk they are," he said. "And sometimes I do sit and wonder to myself, is this person going to be driving home? Obviously I can't be a policeman to everybody, but it is something you sort of ask yourself: Where is this person going from here, and how are they getting there?" Visit www.myspace.com/philayoub.

Ground Control drunk driving prevention campaign: www.preventdrunkdriving.net or www.myspace.com/rockersforlife

Here comes yet another tougher stance on drunk driving / dwi / dui.

Starting Sunday, a new law aimed at keeping reoffenders from climbing back behind the wheel takes effect.
Right now, it doesn't matter how many DUIs you have, they're all misdemeanors.
Starting Sunday, that'll change. On your fifth DUI it'll automatically be a felony.
It doesn't matter, one, two, ten, right now, even if you've killed someone while behind the wheel, drunk driving remains a misdemeanor.
So in response to constant reoffenders, the state is making drunk driving an automatic felony if you're convicted five times in a ten year period.
"I mean I understand everybody makes a mistake, but five times. Five convictions for a dui is way too many before they do something more serious," said one driver.
"I've seen some very damaging things, and a lot of broken families and homes as a result of it," said another.
The change comes after 25 years of political wrangling for tougher punishment for drunk drivers.
For the state patrol, they say it's way too often they pull over a person with multiple previous convictions. Usually those reoffenders have alcohol problems.
"About the only way you can take somebody that's got a drinking problem out from behind the wheel is to put them in jail or to make the punishment so severe that it will prevent them from driving in the future," said Sgt. Roger Wilbur with WSP.
The majority of offenders will never reoffend, but for those who do, a fifth conviction could carry as many as five years in jail.
"Those small group of DUI offenders, they do seem to be, they are better off in Superior Court, facing a prison sentence," said Benton County Prosecutor Andy Miller.
That time won't be in the county jail. Miller says it'll be in prison, with a felony on your record.
Washington is one of only a few states that doesn't have a felony DUI law.
It takes effect Sunday, just in time for the Fourth of July.

June 28, 2007
Breaking News Alerts

PHOENIX, Az

A 65-year-old St. Louis man is missing after Amtrak personnel, mistaking his diabetic shock for drunk and disorderly behavior, kicked him off a train in the middle of a national forest, according to police in Williams, Ariz.

Police said Roosevelt Sims was headed to Los Angeles but was asked to leave the train shortly before 10 p.m. Sunday at a railroad crossing five miles outside Williams.

"He was let off in the middle of a national forest, which is about 800,000 acres of beautiful pine trees," Lt. Mike Graham said.
Police said there is no train station or running water at the crossing, which is about two miles from the nearest road, at an elevation of about 8,000 feet.
Amtrak personnel told police dispatchers that Sims was drunk and unruly.
The Sims family said Sims is diabetic and was going into shock.
Sims' brother, Brian Mason, said his family tried to call Sims on his cell phone that night, but Sims was incoherent.

Williams police told CBS 5 that Amtrak has used the abandoned crossing as a drop-off site in the past. Graham said that whether drunk or not, no one should be dropped off there.

The Sacramento man accused of killing four people in a DUI crash is facing up to 17 years in prison.

Vellanoweth is accused of driving drunk on South Land Park Drive in Sacramento on March 26, when his Jeep Cherokee slammed head-on into another car. Three women and a toddler in the other car were killed.

A fifth person was injured.Among the victims were Rice's daughters, 21-year-old Brizchelle Rice and 17-year-old Brittanya Nash. Rice's grandson, 19-month old Kamall Osby, was also killed. The fourth victim was a family friend, Shanice Carter, 18."The accident reconstruction investigation is still ongoing, and we don't have those complete reports yet," said prosecutor Albert Locher. "There's no point in moving forward until we have those completed reports."After the hearing, Locher explained the situation to Rice and other family members in the hallway.

He said the police reports should be complete within a few days and expects the case will move forward at the next appearance August 2."I know you're frustrated. I am too," Locher told them.Vellanoweth, a 63-year-old political activist, was freed on bond just a couple of days after the crash.

He hasn't entered a plea to the charges of four counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and two counts of felony California drunk driving /DUI .

A police officer was arrested Wednesday night after state police say they suspected him of DUI - under the influence of alcohol.

Police officer Jamie Stamper was off duty when he was allegedly spotted at a gas station. A Kentucky state trooper noticed some strange behavior when he questioned the officer. Stamper was then taken into custody and charged with driving under the influence / DUI / drunk driving.

Chris Healy was re-elected Tuesday night as Republican state chairman, two weeks after informing the GOP's state central committee he was an alcoholic and had been convicted of drunken driving / DUI / DWI for the second time in five years.

Healy, 49, who has followed a program of counseling and support for years, was elected without opposition to a two-year term by committee members willing to view Healy's recent conviction as a lapse by a colleague struggling with a disease.

New DUI law ready to take affect

Big Island Police are warning the public that the state's DUI law has been amended to target highly intoxicated drivers / drunk drivers. The law, which takes affect on July 1, 2007, has stricter sanctions for those drivers who are arrested with a blood alcohol content of .150 or higher, which is nearly twice the legal limit of .08.
Under the new law, repeat offenders or highly intoxicated drivers who are arrested will have to surrender their motor vehicle registration, driver's license and license plates to the arresting officer. The officer will then issue a temporary registration and plates until a review is conducted. The driver will not be eligible for a conditional driving permit.
There is a mandatory six-month revocation of the driver's license and driving privileges. The maximum revocation is one year. The driver may also face 72 hours of community service, not less than 48 hours in jail, and a fine of $150 to $1,000 if convicted.
"Similar high blood alcohol content laws have been enacted in many other states due to the rise of highly intoxicated drivers throughout the nation," said Sergeant Dexter Veriato of the Police Department's Traffic Services Section.
Hawaii has one of highest alcohol-related fatality rates in the nation and the Big Island has the highest in the state. "While the average for the state is about 45 percent, the Big Island's alcohol fatality rate has averaged about 60 percent over the last two years," Veriato said. "Impaired driving is a big problem in our community. We need everyone's help in saving lives."

Police will increase DUI roadblocks island-wide during the 4th of July holiday period and will also maintain roving patrols that will be out looking for impaired / drunk / DUI / DWI drivers.

California DUI Man Faces Drunk Driving Charges After Hitting Parked Car

PALM SPRINGS, Calif.

A Valley Village man who fled a collision in Palm Springs, then ran into a stopped car, was facing a California DUI / drunk driving charge Wednesday and possibly others, police said.James Justin Mitchell, 45, of Valley Village, was allegedly driving a BMW that collided with another vehicle near Sunrise Way and East Palm Canyon Drive about 6 Tuesday night, police Sgt. Mitch Spike said.About five minutes later, Mitchell's BMW hit a stopped Nissan Altima at Morongo Road and South Palm Canyon Drive, Spike said. No one seriously injured, he said. Mitchell was booked for driving under the influence / DUI / drunk driving.

The state fire marshal has lost the use of his state vehicle and will soon lose his ability to get behind the wheel as part of the fallout from a May drunken-driving / DUI / DWI arrest.But it is not clear whether David B. Foreman’s job is in danger after his May 15 run-in with Springfield police.A spokeswoman for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who appointed Foreman to the $102,000-per-year post in February 2006, said the governor is awaiting the outcome of Foreman’s court case before taking any disciplinary action.“Before we take any administrative action, we’ll wait until the legal process has played itself out,” said spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch.That’s a different approach than the state used in 2005, when a supervisor in the state fire marshal’s office fought to keep his job after allegations surfaced that he was drinking on the job.In that case, Michael P. O’Donnell was in a state vehicle in Chicago’s suburbs when he crashed. A police officer said he smelled alcohol after the wreck.But, despite not being charged with drunken driving, O’Donnell was removed from his nearly $70,000-per-year state job. The state’s decision was unanimously supported by the Illinois Civil Service Commission in an August 2005 ruling.Foreman’s drunken-driving trial is set to begin July 23 in Sangamon County Circuit Court.Police reports indicate he refused to take a breath test after being pulled over on Springfield’s west side about 4 a.m.He was taken to jail and was bailed out within an hour by a colleague.Patti Thompson, spokeswoman for the fire marshal’s office, said Foreman has been using his own vehicle for state business since the arrest. Once he loses his ability to drive this Sunday as part of a state-mandated six-month license suspension, Foreman will take taxis and hitch rides with co-workers in order to conduct his business while in Springfield, she said.“He lives up in the Joliet area so he’ll be taking a train coming down here,” Thompson said Wednesday. “He can use cabs if he needs to get around. He’ll do like anybody else would when they don’t have a way of getting around.”Unlike other top state agency officials, Thompson said Foreman will not have a driver assigned to him during this time of the DUI.

A Rehoboth Beach, Delaware man faces indecent exposure and DUI charges after allegedly fondling himself in front of a woman in a grocery store parking lot.
Delaware State Police say that on Monday, June 25, at approximately 10 a.m. troopers responded to the Super G parking lot on and County Road 270 after receiving information that a man allegedly exposed himself to a 38-year-old Frederick, Md. woman.
According to police, the woman called 911 after she observed a man fondling himself in a blue Nissan Altima parked next to her car. Police say that as the woman entered her car she looked out of her driver's side window and the man continued to expose his genitalia to her. The woman backed out of her parking space and obtained the Altima's registration number and later provided that information along with the man's description to the police. Troopers responded to the parking lot and located the Altima and a man matching the description provided by the woman.
Upon arrival at the scene, troopers located 30-year-old Lancer Q. Perry, a.k.a. Lance Perry, of Rehoboth Beach, in the driver's seat of the Altima. During the investigation troopers questioned Perry. Police say that during the questioning, troopers smelled an odor of alcoholic beverage coming from Perry's breath. Police say they arrested Perry after failed a field sobriety test at the scene.
Perry was later arrested for one count of second-degree indecent exposure and driving under the influence / DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving.

Bill aligns boat, snowmobile, ORV, road drunk driving laws

June 27, 2007 -

Legislation recently introduced in the state House of Representatives to revise current off-road vehicle (ORV), snowmobile, and boat operation standards has earned wide support from lawmakers and made its way to the Senate.With a vote of 103-5, House Bill (HB) 4789 left the lower chamber for Senate approval, which could make changes effective Jan. 1, 2008.The measure, as it stands by amendment, makes two noteworthy revisions to the current ORV operational codes by aligning those provisions with current automobile operation standards. It prohibits the use of an ORV with a blood alcohol level of .08 grams, lowered from 1.0. It also aligns drunken ORV operation that results in death with the automobile criminal code dealing with homicide, manslaughter and murder.The move essentially makes drinking and ORV operating standards the same as those involving road vehicles.In the House, the bill went through the judiciary committee, on which lakes area state Rep. David Law (R-Commerce, West Bloomfield, Wolverine Lake) serves."I believe this is tying up loose ends," he said. "There were some questions as to snowmobiles, off road vehicles, and things like that. This makes it clear."When the drunk driving standards for road vehicles were recently changed in the state, provisions dealing with ORV operation were left ambiguous. Typically, operation standards are applied across the board, but according to Law, the holes left some gaps that may have allowed offenders to slip away without proper punishment."There was argument on whether the law change from before really dealt with snowmobiles and other ORVs," he said. "So, these provisions make it equal to the automobile change. There should be no questioning now whether it applies to ORVs or not."As a former assistant prosecutor for Oakland County, Law said he hopes this makes it easier for others to make their case against future offenders."I don't think it's right to have different penalties if you kill someone with a car vs. killing them with an ORV," he said. "There were times prosecutors couldn't charge as high a crime as they could have because the law was ambiguous."HB 4789 was received in the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, June 14 and awaits a hearing.This bill is tied to several others that specifically address certain types of ORVs. HB 4794 deals with watercraft, HB 4795 with snowmobiles, and HB 4813 provides sentencing guidelines. Those bills also await a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, after also clearing the House floor."Common sense would dictate that if you're driving a motor vehicle of any sort, be it a snowmobile, a car, or motorcycle, or boat, that drinking and driving don't mix," said Sen. Nancy Cassis (R-Commerce, Milford, Highland, White Lake, West Bloomfield, Orchard Lake, Wixom, Walled Lake and Wolverine Lake) . "I'm certainly interested in looking at this legislation. We don't need more people injured or killed in accidents related to (DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving ) alcohol."

Virginia's Exorbitant New Abuser Fees: Happy Motoring!

Starting on Sunday, if a jerk from Maryland or the District drives recklessly in Virginia, he'll be liable for a $100 fine. But if the jerky driver is a Virginian, he'll get slapped with an extra $1,050 fine on top of the $100. Similarly, if an out of state drunk gets caught on a Virginia road, he'll face a $250 fine if this is his first DUI. But a Virginian caught in the same act will have to pay the $250 plus a bonus fee of $2,250.

Needless to say, this innovation in soaking roadway miscreants is not going over especially well in the Old Dominion.
There's a great uproar about the supposed unfairness of hitting Virginians with giant fees that out of state drivers don't have to worry about. There's a wave of grumbling about how this new fee structure came to pass, with a special focus on the role of the lawyer/politicians who stand to gain big money from this novel way of raising tax dollars.
There's a big bonanza of fees awaiting those law firms around the state that are selected to go chase after the highway miscreants who don't pay their fines in a timely way. Let's take a look at some of the discomfiting effects of this new law. State attorney general Bob McDonnell, who wants to be your next governor, used to work at the firm of Huff, Poole & Mahoney in Virginia Beach, which has an exclusive contract with local prosecutors' offices to go out and collect those unpaid fines. The firm, according to the Virginian-Pilot, earned more than $2 million in collection fees last year. McDonnell, as his staff was quick to remind me this morning, does not give out those contracts and has no financial connection to his old firm. But still, it doesn't exactly breed confidence in the system when lawyers who go on to work for the people of Virginia appear to be in the position of creating law that could help their old friends.
Closer to home, it's northern Virginia Delegate David Albo who's getting slammed as the creator of this new fee structure. It turns out that the Fairfax delegate is, in his off hours from his legislative work, a lawyer at a firm that handles a lot of traffic matters. That, his critics say, puts Albo in a position to profit handsomely from the new fees.
Albo himself defends the abuser fees as a good way to raise state money for transportation improvements--goodness knows we wouldn't want to raise taxes in an open and fair manner--and as a fair tool to wield against the jerks who make driving more dangerous than it ought to be.
"My job as a delegate is to make people slow down and build some roads," Albo told the Post's Tom Jackman. "This bill does both.... It's basically a voluntary tax. If you don't commit a crime on the streets, or run up a huge amount of points, you don't pay anything. We believe its main effect will be to get people to stop driving like maniacs."
This is a bipartisan load: Gov. Tim Kaine said pretty much the same thing yesterday. "I don't have the ability to give driving instructions to 7 1/2 million Virginians, but hopefully the prospect of stiff fines will make people drive right," the guv told WTOP radio.
Ok--I agree with the new law's critics that there's something distasteful and even unfair about smacking the state's own residents with these fees while letting out of state drivers carry on as usual. And I think it's essentially dishonest to rely on sneaky fees like this to raise the money that should be raised with a straightforward tax increase, in this case, by hiking the gas tax.
But Albo is correct about one very important part of this initiative: Confiscatory fees do have a good social impact. In New Jersey, where similar fees have been on the books since 1983 (though they are imposed on all offenders, no matter whether they live in Jersey), drivers have become more careful--the number of points they've accrued has dropped since the fees were imposed. And in European countries, insanely high fines have helped to reduce drunk driving & DUI / DWI.

Man caught drunk driving twice in one day
June 27, 2007

A GERMAN man making a routine trip to the police station to reclaim his stolen car ended up being busted for drunk driving twice in the same day, police said today.
In order to claim the recovered car, the 45-year-old had driven to the station in another vehicle, police in the western city of Marburg said.
After officers noticed alcohol on his breath, a test showed he was over the legal limit and his driving licence and keys were confiscated.
"Officers could not quite believe it when they came across the same man driving his car four hours later," police said.
"He had been drinking in the meantime and a fresh test showed he was even more over the limit," they said.
They called the man's partner to come and pick him up and made sure she drove him home.

News From New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
News from New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
For more information contact: Barbara Kirker, 518-473-7000
Officials Announce Statewide Stop-DWI Effort
Law Enforcement to Crackdown on Motorists that Drink and Drive
ALBANY, NY (06/27/07; 1411)(readMedia)-- Commissioner David J. Swarts of the Department of Motor Vehicles and chair of the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee (GTSC); James May, President of New York State STOP-DWI; Preston Felton, Acting Superintendent of the State Police; John Grebert, Executive Director of the Chiefs of Police Association; and other local law enforcement officials today announced STOP-DWI efforts that will take place statewide. The crackdown is aimed at making sure people are celebrating wisely and safely this holiday week.
STOP-DWI stands for “Special Traffic Options Program for Driving While Intoxicated”. A STOP-DWI enforcement effort to crackdown on drunk driving during the July 4th holiday period will take place from June 29 – July 8. Law enforcement agencies throughout the state will be out in force to reduce the incidence of drunk driving and to ensure our roadways are safe.
“STOP-DWI efforts have led to significant reductions in the number of alcohol related fatalities, but still too many lives are being lost because of crashes caused by drunk or impaired drivers,” Commissioner Swarts said. “I commend law enforcement for their efforts to ensure the safety of all motorists in New York State.”
James May, President of the STOP-DWI Association said, “The New York State STOP-DWI Association is pleased to join forces with the New York State Police, County Sheriff's and municipal police agencies from across New York for the 4th of July STOP-DWI Crackdown Campaign. Highly visible, highly publicized efforts like the 4th of July STOP-DWI Crackdown serve to remind everyone to driver sober. We hope this special effort by law enforcement helps make our roadways safe during the 4th of July holiday week.”
New York State Police Acting Superintendent Preston L. Felton said, “The New York State Police proudly join the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee and the STOP-DWI campaign in the continued effort to discourage, detect, and apprehend impaired drivers. Scores of senseless deaths occur on our highways because of drinking and driving, speeding, aggressive driving, and improper use of safety restraints. State Police enforcement, combined with safe and responsible driving behaviors by motorists, will give way to safer roadways for all New Yorkers this Independence Day holiday.”
John Grebert, Executive Director of the State Police Chiefs said, “The Association, its municipal partners and STOP-DWI coordinators are committed to this important enforcement initiative. This effort, which targets the impaired driver, will save lives and improve highway safety across the State.”
At the news conference, law enforcement agencies noted they will be stepping up their enforcement efforts throughout the year, especially during the upcoming week of the 4th of July holiday. Last year during the 4th of July reporting period of June 30 – July 4 there were six alcohol-related crashes that resulted in six deaths, which was down from the eight fatalities during the same period in 2005.
While these crackdown periods produce positive results, it is important to keep in mind that every 30 minutes, someone in this country dies in an alcohol-related crash. Last year alone, more than one million people nationwide were injured in automobile crashes in which alcohol was a factor.
The STOP-DWI Crackdowns will target the popular holidays of 2007. This week, through the 4th of July holiday, the target period is from June 29 – July 8. During the Labor Day holiday, September 1-3, will have increased enforcement and the holiday period from December 21 – January 1, 2008 will also be targeted.
The STOP-DWI program was enacted for the purpose of coordinating local efforts to reduce alcohol and other drug-related crashes in a comprehensive and financially self-sustaining highway safety program.
The STOP-DWI program permits each of the state’s counties to establish a STOP-DWI Program which qualifies for the return of all fines collected for alcohol and other drug-related traffic offenses occurring within its jurisdiction.
All 62 counties have opted to participate. Each county appoints a STOP-DWI Coordinator, whose duties include the coordination of efforts by agencies involved in alcohol and highway safety.
Although the development and implementation of STOP-DWI programs rests with the counties, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles is charged with the task of approving county STOP-DWI plans.

June 26, 2007

A Niceville woman was charged with DUI driving under the influence after she fell off of her bicycle while an Okaloosa County Sheriff ’s deputy was driving down the street. The woman was on Pine Street when she fell down, left her bicycle in the roadway and walked away from the deputy, who asked her to remove it, according to a Sheriff ’s Office report. Instead of complying, she “staggered away towards the house,” and the deputy followed her, the report stated The report said the deputy could smell alcohol and that the woman had difficulty with the DUI field sobriety test. She was so unsteady on her feet that he noted in the report that he thought it was “unsafe” for her to continue try to pass the test. She told him she had only one drink in the morning. It was about 11 a.m. June 17 when the deputy encountered her. On the breath test, she had a 0.22 and 0.22 BAC.

DUI Incident- Police Sergeant And DUI Suspect In Hospital


A San Diego police sergeant who was hit by a suspected San Diego DUI driver & an alleged San Diego Drunk Driver have been hospitalized.

The sergeant pulled over a vehicle at the corner of University and Granada avenues in North Park . San Diego Police Lt. Lori Luhnow said, While the officers were outside of their vehicle assessing the sobriety of the driver, another alleged San Diego drunk driver hit the rear of the police car with its lights on.

Reports from the police have it that the driver was approaching the eastern part of the University before colliding with the vehicle of the Police officer. The driver who caused the accident was apprehended at the spot.

Injuries were sustained by the officer, the driver and a passenger that was in the car that was collided and as a result, they were taken to the hospital for medical attention.

An alleged San Diego drunken driver that caused the San Diego DUI accident would be arrested for San Diego DUI when released from the hospital.

Illinois DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI police have begun participating in a two-week state program targeting drunken drivers.

The Carol Stream police department will conduct saturation patrols and covert enforcement efforts through July 8 as part of the state's "You Drink, You Drive, You Lose" mobilization.

Funding for the village's increased enforcement effort is being provided by the Illinois Department of Transportation Division of Traffic Safety.

DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving Attorney news:

DUI Breath alcohol machine source code discovery may be done in florida and most probably elsewhere in other states. There may be no silver lining.

http://arstechnica. com/news. ars/post/ 20070625- florida-appeals- court-says- trade-secret- protection- takes-priority- over-election- transparency. html

Protecting trade secrets takes priority over election transparency
June 25, 2007

A Florida appeals court has upheld a lower court decision that denies requests for an independent source code audit of voting machines used by Florida's 13th district, which suffered election irregularities in a highly controversial congressional race.

The appeals court has chosen to support a lower court decision which asserts that forcing voting machine maker Election Systems and Software (ES&S) to provide source code access to independent security auditors would amount to "gutting the protections afforded those who own trade secrets."

It all started when candidate Christine Jennings lost to Rep. Vern Buchanan by only 368 votes in a House race last year, the slimmest margin of any congressional race in the country. Irregularities in the election, particularly high undervote rates, caused Jennings to express doubts about the validity of the outcome. During the election, approximately 15 percent (or 18,000) of the total ballots cast in the district did not include a vote in the disputed race. By comparison, the absentee ballots in the same district and regular paper ballots used in neighboring districts only exhibit a 2 percent undervote rate for congressional races. The high undervote rates have been attributed to the ES&S iVotronic machines used in the 13th district.

Although efforts to get the state to force ES&S to submit to additional independent code audits have failed, a bipartisan congressional task force working closely with the Government Accountability Office is actively scrutinizing the circumstances surrounding election irregularities in Florida's 13th district, and may decide to subpoena ES&S. The congressional task force plans to issue a progress report late next month, but the entire investigation is expected to last until September.

Could the iVotronic systems be responsible for the voting irregularities? A growing body of evidence indicates that electronic voting machines, particularly those that use touch-screens, lead to higher undervote rates. Touch-screen voting machines made by major vendors also frequently exhibit serious technical flaws and poor reliability. In response to widespread voting machine problems, Florida governor Charlie Crist is encouraging the state legislature to pass a law that would prevent districts from buying most kinds of touch-screen voting machines.

A bill that was approved by the House Committee on Administration last month includes source code disclosure requirements which stipulate that voting machine makers would be required to disclose their code to independent third-party auditors who may be required to sign nondisclosure agreements. As Tim Lee pointed out in his article on the subject last month, independent code audit requirements are important for election transparency, but nondisclosure agreements would prevent broad public analysis of source code and could potentially be used to intimidate security analysts. Considering the high level of vulnerability exhibited by mainstream electronic voting technology, Congress needs to do all that it can to help the states protect themselves from faulty products.

RADIO personality Steve Price has appeared in a Sydney court where he will contest a charge of mid-range drink-driving.

Price, who hosts the drive-time program on Sydney radio station 2UE, was charged after a night out on April 14. Police caught him riding a Vespa scooter at Neutral Bay, on Sydney's lower north shore, carrying his wife Wendy as a passenger.

As the 52-year-old faced North Sydney Local Court today, Magistrate Andrew George heard that the level of alcohol allegedly found in Price's system would be a matter of debate.

The court was told Price had been prepared to plead guilty to low-range drink-driving, but prosecutors had refused to accept his plea.

Price's lawyer indicated that his client was pleading not guilty to the mid-range drink driving charge.

A man who survived a double-fatal DUI /drunk driving wreck on Indian Valley Road in Novato two years ago was arrested Saturday on suspicion of California DUI, after his speeding 1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass tore through 25 feet of wood fencing on the same road.

Juan Carlos Ascencio, 21, fled in his damaged vehicle before abandoning it and running south on Indian Valley Road, where he was picked up by Marin County sheriff's deputies about 4:20 a.m. Saturday, according to the California Highway Patrol.

A CHP officer determined Ascencio was DUI / under the influence of alcohol and arrested him on suspicion of California drunk driving and hit-and-run property damage.

The accident occurred at the intersection with Indian Springs Road, about 1.5 miles west of the November 2005 crash site where Novato residents Scott Van Hootegem, 18, and Alex Hunt, 19, were killed. Ascencio was one of two passengers who survived.

"When I found out about it this morning, the previous accident was the first thing that came to my mind," CHP spokeswoman Mary Ziegenbein said. "Obviously, this is a lesson that's really slow to sink in. Drinking and driving just don't mix. It impairs your faculties. You don't realize how fast you're going, your vision and judgment are both impaired."

Ascencio, who was not injured in Saturday's crash, has not yet been charged by the Marin County District Attorney's Office. Toxicology tests generally take two to four weeks.

"One fortunate thing is that no one was hurt and only property was damaged," Ziegenbein said. "It could have been far, far worse."

According to the CHP, Ascencio was driving at a high rate of speed and failed to negotiate a 90-degree turn at Indian Springs Road - near Slowdown Court. The car veered wide around the turn, skidded and ran onto the shoulder of the roadway before striking two ornamental structures and destroying a section of fencing at 1897 Indian Valley Road, the CHP reported.

Ascencio was in the back seat of Van Hootegem's Ford F-250 pickup truck that crashed into an oak tree on a winding turn on Indian Valley Road near Arthur Street in the early-morning hours of Nov. 12, 2005. The crash occurred after a birthday party at which alcohol was served.

In the aftermath of that crash, the county Board of Supervisors adopted a social host ordinance in which fines can be levied against parents and other adults who host parties where alcohol is served to underage youth.

Increased DUI patrols

The Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, California Highway Patrol, Cal State Fullerton, Cypress, Fullerton, La Habra, La Palma and Placentia law enforcement agencies will be conducting increased California DUI / drunk driving patrols from Friday through July 6.

The agencies are part of a two-year grant program funded by the Office of Traffic Safety, which conducts a California DUI / drunk driving enforcement activity each month.

California DUI enforcement activities include California DUI patrols and checkpoints, and California DUI warrant and parolee compliance checks. The goal of the grant is to reduce the incidence of fatalities, injuries and property damage due to California DUI /drunk driving on highways.

California DUI and Driver's license checkpoint to be held Tuesday


Bakersfield Police will be conducting a DUI and Driver's License checkpoint Tuesday morning in Bakersfield.

The checkpoint will be held from 7 am until 1 pm Tuesday at an undisclosed location.

The purpose of the checkpoint is to educate the public about laws dealing with DUI / driving under the influence of intoxicants and the importance of being a legally licensed driver.

Unsigned: DUI law puts government into perspective

June 25, 2007

Read an article in the paper that restores your faith in the U.S. political system. Read something that does the opposite.

A bill signed into law recently by Gov. Janet Napolitano will require any DUI / drunk driving offender - extreme or not, to have an ignition interlock device placed on their vehicle. The device acts as a breathalyzer before the driver can start the engine. The law will also go into play for first-time DUI / drunk driving offenders.

Now, whether you agree with this law or not, that's not really the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that shortly after Napolitano signed the bill, there was talk of changes being made.

With one last DUI bill that could pass through the legislature before the session ended, Rep. John Kavanagh R-Fountain Hills attached an amendment that would repeal the law from effecting first-time offenders unless they caused an accident.

In the end, the bill failed and the DUI law will stay as it is. But the question arises of why would something Kavanagh originally voted for be contested so shortly after becoming law? Is there a good reason? Probably not.

Escondido DUI patrol nets 3 DUI arrests

June 25, 2007

ESCONDIDO ---- 3 people were arrested for DUI during a weekend patrol targeting San Diego County DUI or drunk drivers, Escondido police said.

The patrol was conducted between 7 p.m. Saturday and 1 a.m. Sunday.

Police arrested three drivers on suspicion of driving under the influence / DUI / drunk driving.

Motorcyclist hits deer, faces DWI charges


Victoria Freile
Staff writer



(June 25, 2007) — A man, accused of driving drunk, was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident early today, according to Ontario County Sheriff’s deputies.

Joshuwia R. Szkapi, 22, was driving a motorcycle on County Road 32 in Canandaigua and struck a deer about 12:45 a.m., according to Ontario County Sheriff’s deputies. He was allegedly speeding at the time of the crash and sustained internal injuries and burns, deputies said.

The status of the deer was not available.

Szkapi was charged with driving while intoxicated / DWI / drunk driving and ticketed for unsafe speed.

A study warned against the use of a cell phone while behind the wheel.

In the study, David Strayer and Frank Drews, professors of psychology, showed that cell phone users were five times more likely to get in an accident -- the same risk as a drunk driver with an alcohol level of 0.08 or DUI.

Now their alarming findings are being used to fuel a political debate. In the most recent state legislative session, Kory Holdaway, R-Taylorsville, Utah, used the study to argue for a bill banning drivers from chatting on the phone. The measure failed.

Holdaway, who's been trying for years to pass legislation prohibiting cell phone use in the car, said the study provided vital information that he hopes will convince state legislators to pass the bill next session.

However, some think legislation against driving and talking is an infringement on personal liberties.

Penalties would "have to be stiff" to get anybody to listen.

Although some may view the legislation as an infringement on personal rights, there's no argument when public safety is concerned.

Some people think it doesn't affect them, but everybody is impaired when they talk on their phone and drive at the same time.

Drews said that people are already making changes in their driving habits because they are becoming more aware of the danger associated with talking on a cell phone behind the wheel. He hopes to see lobbying groups in the future similar to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The Houston Police Department hopes a new vehicle will help fight the trend of more drunk driving and DUI's / DWI's.

Breath alcohol testing vans will have the equipment. The breath anlyzer equipment will be in the van along with a computer and fax and possibly a small holding cell, reports the Chief.

In a news conference June 25, 2007, the Chief believes these self-contained DWI / DUI / drunk driving processing vans will allow arresting officers to transport suspects faster to jail for DUI / DWI / drunk driving.

June 25, 2007

Nearly 18,000 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes in the last year -- an average of one every half hour. Upcoming holidays like the 4th of July and Labor Day are some of the most dangerous days on the road, in part, because of people who had one too many drinks at parties hosted by family or friends.

Many people lose their lives every year because of drunk driving, an easily preventable act. While many people spend days and even weeks planning the perfect party, they don't give a second thought to how their guests will arrive safely home and what action they will take if someone drinks too much and wants to drive.

While it may seem awkward asking a guest not to drive while intoxicated, it could save lives, and at the same time, spare you possible legal responsibility for your guest's actions should he or she get in an auto accident.

To help reduce the risk your guests will be involved in DUI's or alcohol-related accidents, it is recommends that hosts take the following important steps:

Planning the Party:
-- Let your guests know ahead of time how you feel about drinking and driving, and their need to be responsible about their alcohol consumption.

-- As guests RSVP, confirm each groups' non-drinking designated driver.

-- Plan activities to engage your guests, to take the focus away from drinking.

-- Provide plenty of high-protein foods, like cheese and meats, to help slow the absorption of alcohol and keep guests from drinking on an empty stomach. Keep in mind, however, that food does not affect the pace alcohol leaves someone's system.

-- Avoid salty snacks, like potato chips, that can cause thirsty guests to drink more.

-- Plan to offer unique, non-alcoholic beverages, or "mocktails," with clever names for designated drivers and others who prefer not to drink alcohol.

-- If preparing an alcoholic punch, use a fruit juice instead of a carbonated base, which can speed the absorption of alcohol into the blood stream.

-- Have the number of a taxi service on hand for anyone who may need a ride, or plan to drive any intoxicated partygoers home.

Party Time:
-- Have fun. Remember you are responsible for the safety of your guests, and in some cases, their actions when they leave your party. Good hosts stay in control and don't drink too much in order to make sure guests do the same.

-- Never serve alcohol to someone under the legal drinking age and keep alcohol in a central, visible place, where teen drivers can't "sneak" a drink.

-- Never ask children to serve alcohol at parties.

-- Don't let guests mix their own drinks. Use a reliable "bartender" who can track the size and number of drinks each guest consumes.

-- If a guest is drinking too much, stop serving them and offer them a
non-alcoholic beverage.

-- Close the bar 90 minutes before the end of the party; use the rest of the party to serve coffee and dessert.

-- If guests drink too much, don't let them drive: Drive them home yourself, (leaving another sober guest to fill-in as host while you are gone). Arrange for another guest or a taxi to take guests home, or invite them to stay over.

June 25: In yet another case of DUI / DRUNK DRIVING / “driving under the influence”, a man lost control of his Maruti and ran over three jhuggi dwellers sleeping on the pavement on Bhairon Road. All three sustained injuries. One of them is still in hospital, the other two were discharged after first aid.

The driver, Inderjeet Singh, who runs a dhaba in Indirapuram, tried to flee but has been arrested. Singh was inebriated while returning home from his dhabha along with his four workers around 1.30 am on Sunday. He was reportedly driving at a breakneck speed and the car, eyewitness told police, was careening wildly.

At Bhairon Road, he lost control of the vehicle, which went climbed the pavement, running over three persons.

The victims, Shabnam (20), Irfan (23) and Monu (18) are residents of a nearby jhuggi cluster. Singh tried to flee, but the victims’ relatives raised an alarm. A PCR van parked in the vicinity was informed, which gave chase to the Maruti and arrested Singh for DUI / drunk driving / driving under the influence.

June 25, 2007

WALDRON, Arkansas

A Huntington man faces charges of driving on a suspended license and DUI/ DWI / drunk driving after he reportedly ran over and killed a 3-year-old girl, police said.

Richard Egan was leaving a home in Waldron on Saturday when he allegedly backed over the child, who was bent down playing in the dirt of the driveway or who was playing in the area. After he struck the girl, Egan allegedly left his car and began performing CPR on the child, witnesses told police.

The girl, Dawn Skylar Newell, died Sunday at Arkansas Children's hospital in Little Rock, authorities said.

The Waldron Police Department said Egan registered 0.14 on a blood-alcohol test.

Egan was charged with DWI / driving while intoxicated, driving on a suspended license and careless prohibitive driving, and may face a negligent homicide charge as well.

A San Diego police officer was injured early yesterday morning during a DUI / drunk driving stop.

The officer had pulled over a suspected drunken driver and was standing outside her patrol car administering a field sobriety check, police said. A second driver then crashed into the officer's car, which hit the officer and injured her.

The incident occurred about 2:30 a.m. at University Avenue and Utah Street. Both drivers were arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. The officer was not hospitalized, police said.

While the officers were outside of their vehicle assessing the sobriety of the driver, another alleged drunk driver hit the rear of the police car with its lights on, San Diego Police Lt. Lori Luhnow indicated.

Police said the driver was heading east on University before slamming into the officer's vehicle, which then hit the car already pulled over on the side of the road.

The driver who caused the accident was arrested at the scene, police said.

The officer and the driver that was pulled over, and a passenger that was in the car that collided with the others, were taken to a hospital with minor injuries, officials said.

Police said the suspected drunken driver originally pulled over will be arrested once released from the hospital.

Prosecutor Debunks .08 DUI Myth


High-profile alleged drunk driving accidents has put an increased focus on blood-alcohol content levels.

In May, a DuPage County Illinois prosecutor was killed in an accident where her BAC was later determined to be .25 percent. The driver in an Oswego crash in February that killed five teenagers is accused of having a BAC of around .084. A trial began last week for the alleged driver in a 2006 triple-fatal crash, where at least one report put his BAC at .18.

But if you think it takes an extreme blood-alcohol level to get a DUI conviction, think again.

While it's true that .08 is the legal limit for intoxication, drivers can be convicted of drunken driving with BAC as low as .05.

That means some women could be at risk for a drunk-driving conviction after just one drink; all men would be in jeopardy after three drinks consumed in an hour.

People say a case should be dismissed because the person blew under a .08. Not necessarily is what the State's Attorney says.

At .08 percent blood alcohol, prosecutors do not have to prove you were intoxicated at the time of the traffic stop -- it is presumed you were drunk.

But you can be charged and convicted of drunk driving if your blood alcohol is between .05 and .079 if prosecutors can prove that your driving was impaired at the time of your stop or accident. (Below .05, drivers are legally presumed to not be intoxicated.)

If such a borderline case went to trial, prosecutors would present evidence of the driver's actions or statements to show he or she was obviously too impaired to drive, even if their BAC was below .08. It's obviously a more difficult proposition to prove, but local prosecutors say they have gotten convictions.

Calculating blood-alcohol levels -- the percentage of alcohol in the blood stream -- is based on the amount of drinks a person consumes over how long a period of time measured against that person's weight.

According to the Illinois secretary of state's office, research has shown that critical driving skills are impaired for anyone with a .08 BAC. Skills such as changing lanes, braking and acceleration are affected at that level, according to the Illinois Secretary of State's office.

Barona tribe is trying to change the state's trespassing law to give tribal governments the power to order people off Indian lands and have sheriff's deputies write $250 or $500 tickets.

The change is needed because it has little recourse for keeping non-Indian drug dealers and other criminals including San Diego drunk driving or DUI from coming onto its reservation or casino.

Current state trespassing laws apply when people go onto property that is cultivated, fenced or posted with at least three signs every mile.

The Barona tribe is working to change the law as it applies to Indian lands, which it says are often too large to fence, cultivate or post with signs. The bill would allow tribes to banish nontribal members in writing. Once warned, people would be subject to fines.

A state Assembly committee will hold a hearing on the issue Tuesday.

Tribal officials can tell troublemakers on the reservation's residential areas or casino to stay away, but that's about it. They know they won't be punished. What's the worst that's going to happen? The sheriff is going to put them in the car and take them down the hill. If the tribe-backed bill becomes law, trespassers would face a $250 fine if they return after being warned and $500 if they return again.

Local police agencies, which have jurisdiction on reservations for criminal matters, would be responsible for enforcing the law, and the cases would wind up in San Diego County Superior Court.

Critics say the law could be used to punish people who have angered tribal leaders; it also could be used against non-Indians who have legitimate reasons to be on the reservation.

The California Senate has approved Senate Bill 331, sponsored by Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles.

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Kolender and District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis support the bill.

It is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly's Public Safety Committee tomorrow.
A spokesman for Romero said he couldn't comment on the legislation because legislators “are still meeting, negotiating until the very last minute.”

Another bill, written by Dumanis' office, would allow businesses across the state – from Indian casinos to discount stores to taco stands – to exclude for six months trespassers who have interfered with the business.

If they return, they could be arrested on misdemeanor trespassing charges. They're going to get drunk, grab women inappropriately. They're going to steal. They're going to try to cheat.

That measure, Senate Bill 804, sponsored by Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta, has stalled because of jail and prison overcrowding.

Several tribes with successful casinos have posted guards at gates to limit access to residential areas of their reservations.

Opposition to Barona's measure is coming from people such as Joe Liska, 46, of El Cajon.

A few years ago, Liska protested the Pechanga tribe, complaining that it wrongly refused to recognize his Indian roots. He later was banished from the reservation near Temecula, where his birth father – he was adopted – is buried.

Pechanga, like several other tribes, including some in San Diego County, has had membership disputes.

There are fears that the proposed law can be used to hurt Indians, particularly those who have been allotted land on reservations other than their own.

The complex and intertwined history of California Indian tribes makes that possible.

Another potential problem is for non-Indians who own property surrounded by reservations or whose property is only accessible by going onto Indian land.

At Barona, neighbors were cut off from their properties after the Cedar fire. The only way onto their land was by driving onto the reservation. After surveying its boundaries when the fire cleared, the tribe strung fencing across their driveways. That might keep out San Diego DUI drivers on those driveways.

Michelle Rodriquez
Jun 24, 2007

Actress Michelle Rodriquez, known to be one of Hollywood's wild set, who is no stranger to the law, claims she's normal...while others in Hollywood are locked up in rehab. To that, we use the old adage...'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

Here's some history on Rodriquez courtesy of Celebrity Wonder...

June 2006: Michelle claimed not to have a problem with alcohol despite a conviction for drunk driving, saying "My father threw up his liver. If I were going to be an alcoholic, I'd know by now".

May 2006: Michelle, who was sentenced to two-months in a Los Angeles County jail, was released after only serving a few hours, because of crowded conditions.

In addition, Michelle served five days in jail in Hawaii for drunk driving and had to serve 60 days for violating her probation with that arrest.

As the Fourth of July holiday approaches, the Henry County Police Department is one of more than 500 departments in the state participating in Operation Zero Tolerance to crack down on drunk driving.

The campaign, which began Friday, is part of the Georgia Office of Highway Safety’s 100 Days of Summer H.E.A.T.( Highway Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic) initiative.

Through July 8, police departments, sheriff’s offices and Georgia State Patrol posts will run intensive patrols and set up sobriety checkpoints, also monitoring the use of seat belts and child restraints.

Currently in its fourth straight year, H.E.A.T. represents GOHS’s efforts to reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads by issuing citations for speeding and aggressive driving, writing tickets for failure to wear safety belts and imposing jail time on those who drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

According to GOHS Director Robert Dallas, Operation Zero Tolerance is about more than making arrests.

“We’re even telling motorists when to watch out for the blue lights. Because it’s not about writing more tickets, it’s about saving more lives,” he said in a statement. “The message is simple. You drive impaired in Georgia, you will go to jail.”

Among the tools used to enforce road checks are Breath Alcohol Testing Trailers, fully-equipped field units where officers can write arrest reports. The Henry department is one of several in the state with its own BAT-trailer.

Dallas called the trailer “a one-stop cop shop.”

“It’s a combination mobile command post and traffic enforcement toolbox on wheels,” he said.

According to GOHS spokesman Jim Shuler, these trailers are an efficient and effective way to reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road.

Each GOHS field trailer has a certified and calibrated Intoxilyzer Unit for checking breath alcohol levels, he said.

A DWI / DUI suspect whose blood alcohol level / BAC was three times the legal limit killed a pair of best friends.

The families of the two men say they left Mountainair for Belen to go shopping Friday morning. But on the way 37 year old Rhonda Trujillo crashed into their truck.
76 year old Florian Miranda died shortly after the crash, 79 year old Richard Silva died late Friday night.

Police have arrested Rhonda Trujillo on numerous charges, they say this is her fourth D. W. I. / DUI arrest.

Saturday Miranda’s family gathered in his Mountainair home, remembering the vibrant but quiet man who they say was always with his childhood friend Richard Silva.

Friday morning the two men left Mountainair for Belen. But along the way they were hit and their pickup was totaled.

“It appears the female driver failed to stop at the stop sign at that intersection,” said Valencia County Sheriff’s Deputy Ed Chavez.

Police confirmed that Trujillo blew three times the legal limit.

Miranda's family says their heart broke after hearing Trujillo was allegedly drunk.

They say they hope D. W. I. laws become tougher, so Miranda hasn't died in vain.

And they hope Trujillo can change for the better.

“I hope and pray maybe from this she will gain some sense of what she did and how her life is going in the wrong direction,” said Miranda’s sister Rosalie Medina.

Miranda’s family says the two men were also riding with a dog in the car. A tan female German Shepard and Labrador mix named Candy.

The family believes the dog may have jumped from the truck, and could be hurt. If you have any information call them at 847 0246.

Rhonda Trujillo remains in the hospital in serious condition.

Deputies say she will be charged with two counts of vehicular homicide, D. W. I., reckless driving, and endangerment of a child since her 7 year old was in the vehicle but not killed when the crash happened.

Michael B. Nifong, the district attorney in Durham, N.C., took the stand to defend his law license after his failed crusade to convict innocent Duke University lacrosse players of gang rape.

Upon being disbarred for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation," he had no more success with his own defense, was suspended from his job last week and now faces a possible lawsuit in civil court. Is this rare or the course? Nifong's misconduct was not really rare.

Some high-profile cases in history have involved similar acts of prosecutorial abuse. The worst violators are often rewarded for their aggressive styles -- maybe offered with a cable television show.

Nifong is a good example of the weird effect of high-profile cases on a prosecutor's judgment and sense of decency. Even before the players were indicted, the district attorney had played to the passions surrounding a black stripper's allegations that she had been raped by affluent white college boys. Nifong inappropriately called the Duke players "a bunch of hooligans'' and essentially promised that he would not allow "Durham in the mind of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl in Durham."

The accuser kept changing her story, and there was no evidence of a gang rape. So this prosecutor had to make decisions in light of proof issues. In addition to his prejudicial comments, Nifong was accused of withholding test results showing that DNA found on the woman's body and underwear came from at least four unknown males -- but none of the 46 lacrosse team members.

Nifong is not the first prosecutor who, in his words, "got carried away" in the glare of television lights. History has repeatedly seen such "great prosecutors" convicting the innocent to satisfy the public. Prosecutors are sworn to protect the rights of the accused as well as the accuser, to refuse to pursue cases that would not serve the interests of justice. Yet in today's environment, it appears that prosecutors can never be too tough, the way models can never be too skinny.

Nifong's disbarment may deter some prosecutorial abuse, but until less visible cases are subjected to more scrutiny, it may prove to be an isolated event -- driven by the same publicity that led to the abuse in the first place. If the case hadn't been so high-profile, it's doubtful that Nifong would have been charged, let alone disbarred, for his misconduct. The Duke case should teach us that a truly fair criminal justice system must strive to protect the rights of the accused as vigorously as it does those of the accuser. Bottom Line: Many Prosecutors Go Too Far, Many Get Away With It.

California DUI flashback: Bing Crosby in 1929


LOS ANGELES -- Decades before Paris Hilton and voracious media hordes anxiously awaited her release from a county jail, aspiring crooner Bing Crosby was quietly jailed with nary a mention in the newspapers. And after he became a star, his arrest and court records just as quietly vanished.

Crosby, then 27, allegedly crashed his car in front of the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel in November 1929 after a night of alleged drinking. This was during Prohibition, when liquor was illegal in the U.S.

The incident meant Crosby missed his big break, a solo in Paul Whiteman's 1930 movie musical "The King of Jazz." But he later wondered whether his voice had been suited to the tune -- a flop could have torpedoed his career before it began.

Eventually he became one of the nation's most beloved entertainers. He won an Oscar in 1944 for "Going My Way." His best known song was "White Christmas," first recorded in 1942. He also starred in the famed "Road" pictures with Bob Hope.

Although his alleged drunk driving wasn't reported in newspapers at the time, and the records disappeared, the facts are not in dispute.

Crosby himself discussed the incident more than 20 years later during a radio broadcast in the early hours of New Year's Day 1950.

The incident is also documented in a 2001 biography by Gary Giddins and in a 1955 Hollywood Reporter article by Crosby's brother, Harry.

In 1929, Crosby and his trio, the Rhythm Boys, came west to film the Whiteman musical, a vaudeville-type production.

To make the band feel at home, Universal Studios, the film's producer, built a recreational lodge for the 24 musicians on the back lot. Whiteman arranged for each of them to buy a Ford to drive around L.A.

"We all bought autos -- or at least we made the down payments with money which Pops [Whiteman] advanced to us, then deducted from our salaries," Harry Crosby wrote in the Nov. 15, 1955, article in the Hollywood Reporter. Bing chose a convertible.

"Pops had promised me a song, 'Song of the Dawn,' " Harry Crosby quoted his brother as saying. "I rehearsed and rehearsed, then took time out to see the SC-UCLA game."

Crosby was a fan of St. Mary's College, or SMC, and the Galloping Gaels beat UCLA at the Coliseum on Nov. 16, 1929.

"There was quite a shindig after the game in our studio bungalow, involving some tippling, but not to excess," his brother recalled.

Bing evidently drove an unknown party guest to her hotel, the Hollywood Roosevelt. There, Bing told his brother, "a car bumped mine after the party," and he was taken to the slammer. The other driver, also allegedly drunk, was arrested, though his name is not known.

"Bing made a left turn into an oncoming car with such force that he and his passenger were knocked over the windshield and onto the pavement. He was fine, but the woman was bloody and unconscious," Giddins wrote in "Bing Crosby, A Pocketful of Dreams: The Early Years 1903-1940."

"He practically drove through the lobby of the Roosevelt Hotel," Bobbe Brox Van Heusen, a singer in Whiteman's film, told Giddins.

From the Lincoln Heights jail, Bing Crosby called a friend and he was bailed out a day later. At his hearing, he came "directly from the golf course, wearing green plus-fours, an orange sweater and check socks," Giddins wrote.

The judge didn't take kindly to his attire, or to his drinking. He asked the singer if he was familiar with the 18th Amendment, the constitutional measure enacting Prohibition.

"Yes, but no one pays much attention to it," Crosby reportedly replied.

Crosby maintained his innocence, claiming he was a victim of a bad driver and a zealous cop. "But it was his brazen court performance," Giddins wrote, that got him a sentence of 60 days. Crosby fumed in his cell over the severity of his sentence. He was later transferred to a jail with a liberal visitation policy. His new jailers apparently allowed two police officers to escort Crosby to the studio during the day and back to jail at night.

But during the two weeks or so it took to arrange the deal, Whiteman gave Crosby's solo to John Boles, arguing it was too costly to hold up filming.

It's not clear how Crosby's arrest records were erased, how his sentence was calculated or whether the judge specified he serve it all -- but he got out early.

Once Crosby became secure in his career, he became philosophical about the 1929 arrest and his loss of the solo.

"[Boles] had a bigger voice and a better delivery for that kind of song than I had, and I often wondered what might have happened to me if I had sung it. I might have flopped with the song. I might have been cut out of the picture. I might never have been given another crack at a song in any picture."

Perhaps Paris Hilton shares an unlikely bond with the singing legend Crosby.

California DUI lawyer news

June 24, 2007

California DUI Officers costs taxpayers an arm and a leg but only arrested one driver on suspicion of California DUI or driving under the influence during an expensive DUI and driver license checkpoint Friday night in Santa Rosa.

According to Santa Rosa police Sgt. Don Hasemeyer, 968 vehicles passed through the California DUI checkpoint, which was set up on Farmers lane near Sonoma Avenue.

One person was arrested on suspicion of DUI or alleged drunk driving.

Police cited 14 drivers for being unlicensed and two others for driving with a license that had been suspended or revoked. Were there more officers working than citations? At what cost? Waste of taxpayer money?!

A grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided funding for the program.

A Sioux Falls man faces drug-related charges after a recent DUI traffic stop on Interstate 29 at the Tea interchange.

Dustin Kern, 24, was arrested June 13 for marijuana possession with intent to distribute, drug paraphernalia possession and DWI / driving while intoxicated, according to the state Highway Patrol.

Trooper Matt Wosje stopped to check on Kern's 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier parked on I-29. While talking with Kern, Wosje noticed an odor of alcohol. After a DUI arrest, the trooper found several marijuana baggies, a digital scale and a glass pipe.

California DUI Attorney news

June 24, 2007

LA VERNE - The Police Department will conduct a driver's license and sobriety checkpoint Friday.

The times and location will not be disclosed, according to a news release from La Verne police.

The checkpoint is funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. Anyone caught driving under the influence or driving without a license will face criminal penalties and the impound of their vehicle for up to 30 days.

Unser Jr. charged with DUI after leaving crash

LAS VEGAS, Nev. -- Two-time Indianapolis 500 winner Al Unser Jr. was charged with DUI or driving under the influence after leaving the scene of a crash.

He was arrested after he was identified as the driver of a car that sideswiped another on the Las Vegas Beltway on Thursday.

Unser allegedly failed several field sobriety tests before being taken into custody. The 44-year-old Unser was charged with DUI / driving under the influence, misdemeanor hit and run, failure to render aid in an accident and failure to report an accident.

They're being mean to me. I cannot get no air, and I hope this is on the radio. I hope this is on the news," Melinda Jackson screamed, handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser.

That was her bizarre behavior on the scene of Thursday's accident. Police say the distracted driver slammed into a teenager standing in the road and was given a field sobriety test.

We learned today Jackson was able to bond out of jail the same day.

"She has no business being out of jail. She has no business being behind the wheel of a car," says Judy Uithoven, who learned about the accident watching the news Thursday.

"If it's her first offense, it's a Class B misdemeanor. Generally the bond on those is $500," says Tyler Police Public Information Officer Don Martin.

The day before, Jackson was arrested for four warrants, including public intoxication. She spent three hours behind bars.

She spent less than five hours in jail after Thursday's accident. She was charged with a DWI or drunk driving.

"So how do explain to someone, a Regular Joe on the outside looking in, that whoever commits a DWI and hits someone, how can they get out of jail the same day?," Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham is asked..

Bingham says for the DWI charge to be upgraded, there has to be evidence Jackson's actions caused serious bodily injury.

The victim has two broken legs and a severe laceration to his mid-section.

Only time will tell if DWI charges stick as the accused exercises her right to walk free.

Monroe

A New York City police officer has been charged with DWI following a one-car accident on Forest Road near the intersection of Franklin Avenue in the early morning hours of June 14.

Monroe Village Det. James Frankild said when that when officers arrived at 3:33 a.m., they found a 21-year-old passenger inside the 1991 Toyota SRV conscious and alert.

However, the driver, 24-year-old Martin Polignone of Monroe, was unconscious, suffering from head injuries. He had to be removed from his vehicle by Monroe firefighters and EMS first-responders.

Polignone’s passenger was taken to the Arden Hill campus of Orange Regional Medical Center in Goshen for observation and later released.

Polignone, who remained unconscious at the scene, was airlifted to Westchester Medical Center.

Police said his blood alcohol content was .14 percent; the legal limit is .08 percent. He remains hospitalized and will be formally charged with DWI OR DUI - driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, when he is released.

Frankild said the department’s accident reconstructionists have determined that speed and alcohol played a role in this accident. He also said that the incident is being investigated by the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Unit.



Polignone has been a New York City cop for 11 months.

The State Assembly passed a bill legalizing medical use of marijuana Wednesday, after about a decade of attempts to approve similar legislation in the state.

“This would mean an awful lot to thousands of suffering New Yorkers,” said Manhattan Assemblyman Richard Gottfried. “The current prohibition in keeping them from that medical benefit is just political correctness run amok.”

The bill allows caregivers and seriously ill patients with diseases like cancer or aids to register with the state to purchase up to two and half ounces of marijuana and grow up to a dozen plants.

“I think it's important people, who that is the only thing that gives them relief, should have it available to them,” said Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Now it's up to the Republican-lead State Senate to take on the controversial issue. The idea got a warm reception from Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno – but he says that the Assembly bill needs tighter controls.

“The Assembly version doesn't work, in my estimation, in all due respect and we’re not going to do that,” said Bruno. “It’s too broad.”

Sponsors of the Senate bill say it could be introduced as early as Thursday and could explore the option of having the state's Department of Health grow and distribute the marijuana. But that would require federal approval – a big leap and a possible court battle.

The Assembly bill allows patients to get the drug through certified dealers. It would still be illegal for the user to re-sell the marijuana.

Opponents say patients already have access to legal drugs to combat pain and nausea. The bill also faces critics in the Senate, who say lawmakers should be addressing more pressing issues.

“It's inappropriately timed,” said State Senator Martin Golden of Brooklyn. “I think it’s the last five days of session and the last thing we have to be discussing here is medical marijuana.”

If both houses can agree on a compromise bill, Governor Eliot Spitzer – a former critic – now says he's open to signing it into law.

Motorists caught drunk-driving
June 24, 2007

North Shore police in Auckland are disappointed at the number of motorists caught drunk-driving during a weekend operation. Fifty-two people were caught with excess breath alcohol, and 18 of them are awaiting blood test results to determine appropriate court action. Seven teenagers were among those processed.

Between Friday night and early this morning, nearly 7,000 vehicles were stopped and two cars impounded.

Looks like they will need the one and only:

John Churchill

john@armstrong- churchill. co.nz>
P.O. Box 34043
Birkenhead
Auckland 0746
New Zealand

Country code [64]
Phone: 9 480 9258
Fax: 9 480 9752
New Zealand Time: http://www.worldtim eserver.com/ current_time_ in_NZ.aspx


__._,_.___

An Illinois resident is arrested for DUI while visiting San Diego California.

This discusses the effects of the San Diego California DUI prosecution and whether one's Illinois driver’s license will be affected.

A California DUI conviction will result in the automatic revocation of an Illinois driver’s license.

A California refusal to submit to chemical testing, (breath, blood and/or urine) after a California arrest for DUI will additionally result in the suspension of an Illinois driver’s license.

LICENSE ACTIONS

A) Effective Date and Duration

The Illinois Secretary of State will automatically revoke the driver’s license of a resident upon receipt of a report of a conviction for California DUI or a similar offense where the cause of action is the same or substantially similar to the offense of DUI as defined in the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code.

Different states have statutory schemes that provide for different impairment levels of DUI. A reduction or amendment of the pending charges to a lower impairment level will still result in a revocation in Illinois as Illinois does not have any graduated scheme.

To avoid a license revocation, any amendment or reduction must be to an offense that will be recognized separately (e.g. Reckless Driving) under the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code.

Assuming that the case will result in a conviction, it usually takes several weeks for the report of the conviction to reach the Illinois Secretary of State. However, upon receipt, the Secretary of State immediately serves a Notice of Revocation upon the affected driver by mailing same to the address listed with the Secretary of State’s office. The revocation’s effective date is normally within a few days of mailing. On this note, you should ask the client whether they still live at the address listed on their Illinois driver’s license. If not, they should be advised to change their address directly with the Secretary of State’s Drivers Services Department forthwith as official notices from the Secretary are not forwarded and the failure of the driver to actually receive the notice does not affect the validity or effective date of the revocation.

In Illinois, license revocations are for a minimum of 1 year if the driver has never been previously convicted of DUI. Two DUI convictions within a 20 year period will result in a minimum revocation of 5 years, and three convictions within twenty years results in a minimum revocation of 10 years. A fourth conviction for DUI renders the driver permanently ineligible from applying for an unrestricted license in Illinois. It is the policy of the Secretary of State’s office not to fully reinstate an otherwise eligible driver until they have first been issued a Restricted Driving Permit (RDP) and drove on it without incident for at least 9 months.

B) Restricted Driving Permit (RDP)-Eligibility and Conditions

Once a revocation is effective, the next issue is when, and under what conditions, one becomes eligible to apply for an RDP. In Illinois, an RDP may be issued for: a) driving to and from work as well as within the scope of the petitioner’s employment related duties; b) to allow transportation of the petitioner or a family member for necessary medical care; c) to and from certain alcohol rehabilitative activities; (i.e. AA meetings), and d) for the petitioner to travel to and from classes at an accredited educational institution. The Secretary of State also will not issue permits for more than 12 hours a day or 6 days a week. Petitioners who have traffic tickets pending in any court (other than a DUI with a pending suspension) or who are also suspended or revoked for other reasons are ineligible to apply for an RDP until the other matters are resolved.

Before one is eligible to apply for an RDP, a petitioner must obtain an alcohol evaluation from an agency licensed by the Illinois Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OASA), and complete the treatment recommended therein at a treatment service provider licensed by OASA. Depending on the treatment level at which a petitioner is classified by the evaluation, other requirements may also apply. The various treatment levels and other requirements are set forth as follows:

Level 1/Minimal Risk - Completion of an Alcohol/Drug Risk Education course (usually 10 hours). Note-Level 1 can only be recommended for petitioners who, at a minimum: a) have no prior DUI dispositions or suspensions; b) submitted to chemical testing with a resulting blood alcohol level of less than .15; and c) were not diagnosed with any other recognized symptoms of substance abuse or dependence.

Level 2M/Moderate Risk - Completion of an Alcohol/Drug Risk Education course (usually 10 hours) and an Early Intervention Counseling Program (Minimum of 12 hours). Note-Level 2M can only be recommended for petitioners who, at a minimum: a) have no prior DUI dispositions or suspensions; b) submitted to chemical testing with a resulting blood alcohol level of .15 to .19; and c) were not diagnosed with any other recognized symptoms of substance abuse or dependence.

Level 2S/Significant Risk - Completion of an Alcohol/Drug Risk Education course (usually 10 hours), Substance Abuse Treatment, (Minimum of 20 hours) and enrollment in and at least partial completion of Aftercare a/k/a Continuing Care (usually 2-3 hours a month for 6 consecutive months). Note-Level 2S will, at a minimum, be recommended for petitioners who: a) have at least 1 prior DUI disposition or suspension; and/or b) submitted to chemical testing with a resulting blood alcohol level of at least .20; and/or c) were diagnosed with other recognized symptoms of substance abuse.

Level 3 High Risk/Dependent - Completion of a minimum of 75 hours of substance abuse treatment and enrollment in and at least partial completion of Aftercare a/k/a Continuing Care (usually 2-3 hours a month for 6 consecutive months). In addition, at the hearing the Petitioner will have to submit proof of establishment of an ongoing support/recovery program (i.e. regular attendance at AA meetings for at least 6 months and having obtained an AA sponsor). Petitioner will also have to document at least 12 consecutive months of abstinence from alcohol and drugs.

Level 3 High Risk/Non-Dependent - Completion of a minimum of 75 hours of substance abuse treatment and enrollment in and at least partial completion of Aftercare a/k/a Continuing Care (usually 2-3 hours a month for 6 consecutive months). In addition, at the hearing the Petitioner will have to submit proof of at least 12 consecutive months of non-problematic use of alcohol (or abstinence if it had been recommended by an evaluator or treatment service provider) as well as abstinence from drugs.

Once the foregoing conditions applicable to the petitioner have been met, they will need to obtain an updated alcohol evaluation from either the original evaluator or the treatment service provider. If the petitioner has never previously been revoked for a DUI conviction, they are eligible for the appropriate type of administrative reinstatement hearing at this point. However, if the petitioner had previously been revoked for another DUI conviction, they are ineligible for a hearing until the revocation has been in effect for at least one year.

C) Informal vs. Formal Reinstatement Hearings

The next step is to determine the type of reinstatement hearing applicable. An informal hearing is available for petitioners who are seeking an RDP and/or full reinstatement and have neither previously been convicted of DUI nor had a statutory summary suspension from a previous DUI. All other petitioners must apply for relief through a formal hearing.

Informal hearings are conducted at many Secretary of State Drivers Service facilities throughout the State. There is no requirement that an informal hearing be requested in writing. A petitioner may retain an attorney to represent them at the hearing. Informal hearings are normally conducted on a "first come-first served" basis.

Petitioners must submit, at a minimum: the original alcohol evaluation and, if necessary an updated evaluation; appropriate documentation verifying completion of the recommended level of counseling; a letter verifying employment schedules and any scope of employment driving that may be required and/or a current school schedule, and, if applicable, appropriate letters documenting abstinence and/or ongoing support group (i.e. AA) involvement. At the hearing, it is the petitioner’s burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that; 1) the alcohol and/or drug problem has been resolved; 2) that the petitioner will be a safe and responsible driver and the issuance on an RDP will not endanger the general public; and 3), that an undue hardship is currently being suffered as a result of the inability to legally operate a motor vehicle.

The decision from the informal hearing is usually mailed to the petitioner within 3 to 4 weeks after the hearing. If the petitioner was approved for an RDP, the letter will be accompanied by a set of instructions on additional steps that may be necessary, such as filing insurance proof, taking a driving test, etc. Once the petitioner receives the permit, they must drive on it for at least 9 months without incident before they will be considered eligible for full reinstatement. This requires another informal hearing for which the petitioner will have to obtain an updated evaluation. If the petitioner was denied at the informal hearing, the letter will explain the reason(s) for the denial, i.e., inconsistencies between the petitioner’s testimony and the documents submitted, improper documentation, etc. Once the problem has been corrected, the petitioner may have another informal hearing, provided it has been at least 30 days since the last hearing. The testimony at an informal hearing is not recorded or transcribed in any way. The only "record" is a form filled out by the hearing officer and submitted to a review board along with the documentation submitted by the petitioner. Finally, there are no appeal procedures following an informal hearing.

Petitioners who are ineligible for informal hearings must proceed with a formal hearing. Formal hearings differ from informal hearings in a variety of ways. Initially, formal hearings are only available in Chicago, Joliet, Springfield or Mount Vernon. A request for a formal hearing is made in writing by the petitioner or their attorney. The Secretary of State’s office then mails a Notice of Hearing to the petitioner (and their attorney if applicable). The Notice sets forth the date, time and place of the hearing and is accompanied by a list of the documentation required to be submitted at the hearing. Once the hearing date has been assigned, it can only be continued for good cause shown.

A formal hearing is conducted by an appointed hearing officer who administers an oath to the petitioner (and any witnesses), takes testimony, issues subpoenas upon request, and rules on objections made during the hearing. The Secretary of State is represented by an appointee who acts as a prosecutor during the hearing. The petitioner’s burden of proof (resolution of alcohol/drug problem, safe driver and undue hardship) is the same as described above for informal hearings. Official notice may be taken of the decisions of any prior hearings as well as any documents (i.e., evaluations, treatment documents, Notices of Summary Suspensions) previously submitted. The hearing is recorded either by an electronic recording system or a court reporter. If requested, a transcript (or copy of the cassette tape of the hearing) can later be ordered by the petitioner at their own expense. After the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer reviews the entire record, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and prepares a recommendation. This is then sent to a review board which either adopts or rejects the recommendation and a written Order is prepared and mailed to the petitioner and their attorney, usually within 6 to 8 weeks. If the petitioner was approved for an RDP, the Order will be accompanied by a set of instructions on additional steps that may be necessary, such as filing insurance proof, taking a driving test, etc. Once the petitioner receives the permit, they must drive on it for at least 9 months without incident before they will be considered eligible for full reinstatement. This requires another formal hearing for which the petitioner will have to obtain an updated evaluation and any applicable letters regarding abstinence, employment and support group attendance. If the petitioner was denied relief at the formal hearing, the Order will set forth in detail the reason(s) for the denial, i.e., inconsistencies between the petitioner’s testimony and the documents submitted, improper documentation, etc. If a petitioner is denied relief, they must wait 4 months before they are eligible for a subsequent hearing. The Order constitutes a final administrative decision which is subject to review under the Illinois Administrative review Law.

D) Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIID)

In addition to the foregoing requirements, many petitioners will also be required to have a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) installed on their car as a further condition of the issuance of an RDP. Simply stated, a BAIID is a breathalyzer wired into the ignition system of an automobile. Before a BAIID-equipped car can be started, the driver must provide a breath sample into the device. If the sample registers above the alcohol setpoint (currently 0.025 breath alcohol concentration), the car is rendered incapable of starting, or "locked out". Petitioners who meet any of the following criteria are designated "BAIID Eligible Petitioners," must have formal hearings and must have a BAIID device installed within 14 days of the issuance of any RDP.

1) Any petitioner who had a DUI arrest on or after January 1st, 1982 which resulted in the loss of driving privileges who then received driving relief after a formal or informal hearing and thereafter received another DUI resulting in another loss of driving privileges;
2) Any Petitioner who received a Judicial Driving Permit (JDP) and within 3 years after the date the JDP was issued, received another DUI and had to seek driving relief at an administrative hearing;
3) Any petitioner classified as Level 3 Dependent with at least 6 but less than 12 months of abstinence from alcohol and/or drugs at the time of the hearing;
4) Any petitioner with 3 DUI dispositions if:
a) The last DUI arrest occurred within 3 years years of the date of the hearing; or
b) Any of the DUI dispositions involved a breath or blood concentration of 0.20 or more.
5) Any petitioner with 4 or more DUI dispositions.

When the RDP is mailed to a BAIID Eligible Petitioner, it is accompanied by a list of approved installers where the device can be obtained. The petitioner has 14 days to have the device installed and can only operate the vehicle for the purpose of obtaining the BAIID device until it has been installed. Any violation of this requirement will result in the immediate cancellation of the RDP.

STATUTORY SUMMARY (IMPLIED CONSENT) SUSPENSIONS
An Illinois licensed driver arrested in another state for DUI who subsequently refused to submit to chemical testing will have their license suspended by the Illinois Secretary of State upon receipt of a report from the State where the incident occurred.

The Illinois Vehicle Code does not specify the length of the suspension as it is classified as "discretionary". However, the Secretary of State’s office typically will issue a 6 month suspension, the same duration applicable to a statutory summary suspension for a first time offender who refuses chemical testing in this State after being arrested for a DUI. The affected driver presumably has a right to a judicial or administrative hearing in the circuit court of venue for the arresting agency to contest the arrest and/or the "refusal." In addition, the driver can both contest the suspension at a formal hearing, and/or request the issuance of an RDP.

If the driver is only seeking an RDP, that can be done at a formal hearing. If the driver is subsequently convicted of the DUI charge, then the length of the implied consent suspension served will automatically be credited against the minimum period of revocation imposed once the Notice of Revocation is issued by the Secretary of State.

Make sure you consult a San Diego California DUI attorney for help in fighting the DUI.

Here's a study entitled: “Determine Whether There Is an Increase in Breath Test Refusals and Develop and Evaluate a Promising Program to Deter Refusals.”

Background

The number of alcohol-related fatalities decreased 37 percent from 25,165 in 1982 to 15,935 in 1998. However, recent numbers of alcohol-related fatalities for 2000 (16,653), 2001 (17,400), 2002 (17,419), and 2003 (17,013) indicate that fatalities continue to exceed the numbers seen in the mid-1990's. It appears that new initiatives are required to achieve additional reductions.

New initiatives to achieve additional reductions in alcohol-related fatalities require an understanding of the problem and efforts to affect it so far. In two recent studies, researchers have identified States that achieved the largest reductions in alcohol-related fatalities from 1982 to 1996 (Ulmer, Hedlund, and Preusser, under review) and examined the reductions as a function of driver age, with a particular emphasis on youth (Hedlund, Ulmer and Preusser, 2000). It appears that stronger laws have been effective in reducing the number of people who choose to drink and drive, but some believe that these same laws have produced an unwanted consequence of higher breath test refusal rates in some States. Offenders receive implied consent penalties for refusal in most States, but refusals may help offenders avoid a DWI conviction, which carries more severe penalties.

A reduction in the number of test refusals will increase the effectiveness of the administrative and criminal systems so offenders can no longer avoid penalties, may help to identify more problem drinkers, and may help identified problem drinkers get some help.

Objective

The three goals of this study are (1) to document the extent of the breath test refusal problem, (2) to investigate the reasons for breath test refusals or lack of a significant percentage of refusals in selected States, and (3) to develop, implement, and evaluate effective and efficient countermeasures to deal with the problem. The first and second goals are covered in this report. A later report will detail the results of the program implementation and evaluation.

Method A review of the administrative sanctions and criminal penalties for breath test refusal in each State, DC, and Puerto Rico was conducted. After the review, each State, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico were contacted to obtain breath test refusal data for the period from 1996 to 2001. Five case-study States were selected to learn more about the causes for refusals. Connecticut, Maryland, Florida, Louisiana, and Oklahoma were selected because they all had rates above the national average and provided a mix in terms of the magnitude of refusal rates and variations in impaired driving laws and practices. Refusal rates ranged from slightly above average to far above the national average. Laws pertaining to test refusals ranged from moderately weak to good. The case studies consisted of interviews with prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, police officers, police supervisors, and administrative unit officers to (1) evaluate the arrest, breath test, administrative, and judicial processes, and (2) identify refusal problems, barriers, and potential solutions.

Results

State laws vary widely with regard to administrative and criminal penalties for refusal. All States but one have administrative sanctions for refusal. Depending upon the State, the administrative sanctions are sometimes more stringent than those for failing a breath test. Most States do not criminalize refusal, but many admit refusals in criminal cases. Most of those that admit refusals in criminal cases do not permit refusals to be used as evidence of guilt. Some States have provisions to force a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test after a refusal.

The distribution of refusal rates amongst States is depicted below in figure 1. The rates shown for 2001 are somewhat higher than rates reported for 1987 in an earlier study (Jones, Joksch, and Wiliszowski, 1991).


*2000 data were used for Massachusetts and New Jersey
**Complete data was not available from AZ, CO, MO, NV, NY, SD, VA, VT, or WY


Refusal rates for some individual States differ markedly from 1987 to 2001, which may be due to real differences or due to real differences combined with differences produced by different data collection methods used by these States for assessing refusal rates in 1987 and in 2001. Refusal rates nationwide remained stable at about one-quarter of all drivers arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI from 1996 to 2001. States with statistically significant changes in refusal rates during this period were split evenly between those with increases and those with decreases. In general, the States where refusal rates decreased already had low rates, and States where rates increased already had high refusal rates. No State with a significant increase in refusals criminalizes refusal. Six of the eight States with statistically significant decreases in refusals have hard license suspensions in which no hardship or work permits are available during the suspension period.

Case Study Results

In Connecticut, 75 percent of those refusing the test are first-time offenders who would receive much less severe administrative penalties and the same criminal penalties for taking and failing a breath test. They become eligible immediately for a work permit during the entire administrative suspension period if they fail a BAC test and almost always receive the Pretrial Alcohol Education program, which results in dismissal of their criminal cases after one year. First-time offenders reportedly often refused based on a lack of understanding of these consequences.

In Maryland, the majority of the refusals are reportedly from first-time offenders. First-time offenders who fail breath tests can receive permission to drive during their entire administrative suspensions, while those who refuse and want to continue driving must have an interlock device installed for one year. First-time offenders almost always have their cases pled down to a lesser impaired driving charge and receive Probation Before Judgment (PBJ), which results in the dismissal of their criminal cases and no record of a DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI, regardless of whether they take or refuse the test. The consensus advice for first-time offenders was to take the breath test because of the reduced administrative penalties and the same PBJ outcome for their criminal cases. As in Connecticut, many first-time offenders in Maryland do not understand these consequences.

In Florida, refusal benefits all offenders arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving. The increased severity of the administrative suspension for refusal is mitigated by the availability of hardship permits that can be obtained if the person does not have a prior BAC test refusal. Both defense attorneys and prosecutors agreed that the consequences for refusal are less severe than the consequences of conviction, even for a first offense. A new law in Florida criminalizing the second refusal may lead to a reduction in refusals by repeat offenders, but the law has not been in effect long enough for State officials to determine its impact.

In Louisiana, first-time offenders have a high rate of breath test refusal. Refusing the breath test benefits the criminal cases of all offenders arrested for DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI. Without a test result, district attorneys have a much more difficult time getting a DWI conviction and usually reduce the charges to obtain a guilty plea. Refusal has the added benefit of avoiding the sanctions contained in Louisiana's high-BAC law if the offender's test result would have been .15 or higher. In at least one jurisdiction, a judge has issued warrants to order blood tests for those who refuse. The strategy may be the best solution to reduce refusals without new legislation.

In Oklahoma, repeat offenders usually refuse the breath test, but most first-time offenders reportedly take it. All those interviewed agreed that it is to the advantage of any offender to refuse the test. The administrative penalties are essentially the same for those who fail and those who refuse a breath test, which means that the criminal case outcome affects refusal more than the administrative sanctions. First-time offenders almost always have their charges pled down regardless of whether they refuse or fail the test.

Conclusions by the Federal Government

In many States across the country officers are instructed to read verbatim to suspects from an Administrative License Revocation (ALR) card - the information on this card is read to the suspect when the officer requests a breath sample, and this provides the suspect with information regarding the consequences of refusing to provide the sample. Officers are often instructed to read this information verbatim to ensure that each suspect receives the same information in a uniform manner that limits any possible coercion on the part of the officer.

In Connecticut and Maryland first-time offenders typically receive less severe penalties for failing the test, even with a high BAC, than for refusing the test. It is believed that many first-time offenders refuse the test because they do not understand these consequences. For States such as these, State officials may want to review their process for notifying suspects of both the administrative and criminal consequences of refusing to provide a breath sample. However, States such as Connecticut and Maryland must then consider the consequences of these offenders receiving less severe sanctions. In addition, if these offenders are not convicted of an alcohol-related offense and are later stopped for DWI, they will not be considered repeat offenders.

Louisiana, and 11 other States with similar laws or case law (e.g., Arizona, California, and Wisconsin), could reduce breath test refusals by encouraging officers to obtain a warrant, when needed, to draw blood for a chemical test.

Warrants could be obtained for as many types of DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI arrests as judges would be willing to issue warrants, such as cases in which the arrested driver had a minor in the vehicle, cases where the driver is suspected of having a BAC above .15, or in cases of driver involvement in an injury crash.

Judges who may not be willing to issue warrants to draw blood for a chemical test for the standard first-time DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI offenders may be more willing to issue a warrant for more egregious offenders. Warrants are already used in at least one jurisdiction in Louisiana. The extent of their use is not known, but they have reportedly eliminated the problem of refusals in cases where they are issued.

It is believed that Oklahoma and Florida are unlikely to reduce refusal rates substantially without new legislation. In each State, the administrative and criminal penalties for refusal are less severe than those for taking and failing the breath test.

(Study conducted for DTNH22-98-D-45079 Task Order 11)

Detention in DUI case ruled unconstitutional

June 23, 2007

The Utah Supreme Court ruled Friday that a man suspected of drunken driving who was stopped in a remote canyon and taken to an off-duty officer's home for sobriety tests was unconstitutionally detained.
In a 4-1 decision, the court said the detention violated Mitchell Worwood's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
On June 20, 2003, an off-duty Utah Highway Patrol trooper encountered Worwood standing by a truck that was partially blocking a dirt road up Deep Canyon near Levan, about 80 miles south of Salt Lake City, according to court papers. Worwood then got in the truck to pull it over to the side of the road, and an off-duty officer, Korey Wright, stopped. Wright reported that he smelled alcohol and Worwood's speech seemed slurred so he told him to he should be checked out by a trooper before driving more. Wright told Worwood to get into Wright's truck. Wright had a friend with him drive Worwood's truck down the canyon and asked that friend to call police and meet them at Wright's house. At Wright's house, an on-duty officer named Kevin Wright arrived and gave Worwood field sobriety tests and arrested him.
Worwood pleaded not guilty to a third-degree felony charge of driving under the influence with two prior convictions. He then filed a motion to have the basis for the charge, including the field sobriety test, suppressed, contending that his constitutional rights had been violated. His motion was denied and he entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court's decision.
But the Utah Supreme Court said that although Wright's initial encounter with Worwood was justified under reasonable suspicion, the rest of the detention exceeded the constitutional bounds of an investigative stop.
The Supreme Court ruled that because the field sobriety tests were part of that detention, the test results should be suppressed and the case should be sent back to 4th District Court in Nephi for further action.

Baltimore Ravens Player DUI Trial Rescheduled

Baltimore Ravens quarterback Steve McNair's DUI case has recently been postponed until July 10th.

McNair was charged with a DUI while riding in the passenger seat while his brother-in-law drove his car.

Media reports had recently stated previously that the Davidson County District Attorney's office would likely dismiss the case; however, the D.A. office has announced they plan to move forward with the case, and that it would be continued until July.

DUI manslaughter and DUI property damage charges were dropped against a 22-year-old man stemming from a July 2005 crash that killed an Englewood teenager.

However, 12th Circuit Court Judge Deno G. Economou may still determine there is enough evidence to try Shawn M. Minor for vehicular homicide in August.

Economou dismissed the DUI-related charges against Minor on Tuesday. He was expected to issue a ruling on the vehicular homicide charge Friday, but did not do so.

If convicted, Minor could be sentenced up to 15 years in prison.

According to the Florida Highway Patrol, Minor, driving a 2004 Ford pickup, strayed onto the eastbound shoulder of East Dearborn Street near Stratford Road and hit and killed Kelvin Jackson, 15, just after midnight on July 21, 2005.

Jackson and friend, Bruce Gordon, had gone to Englewood Bowl on State Road 776 for teen night.

They were walking back to Gordon's home at 381 E. Dearborn St. -- only a few blocks away -- when both were struck by Minor.

Gordon was hit by the pickup's side mirror and suffered only minor injuries.

Jackson was thrown onto the truck's hood and then onto the road. He was taken to Englewood Community Hospital where he was declared dead.

Minor was not charged in the accident until March 2006 when blood test results from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement lab detected marijuana in his body.

However, state prosecutor Wyndel Darville said Thursday, the DUI-related charges were dismissed after Minor's attorney, Bertram Danheiser, presented evidence that his client was not impaired when the accident occurred.

Darville said FDLE lab results were challenged by findings from a University of Florida lab that contend marijuana "detected was not significant enough" to influence Minor's driving.

He said during depositions, nurses and other medical professionals at Englewood Community Hospital testified that "they didn't notice any sign of impairment" in Minor after the accident.

Darville said based on this evidence, Danheiser successfully filed a motion to dismiss the DUI charges because the state could not "prove the element of recklessness due to impairment."

Nevertheless, he contends the vehicular homicide charge against Minor is strong enough to warrant a trial.

"Given the prevailing condition of the vehicle with balding tires, traveling at a speed that was unsafe for those conditions on a two-lane road at night, you have a driver that was reckless in my mind," Darville said.

He said the impetus is on the defense to prove there is not enough evidence to support charges before a trial.

"There is sufficient evidence to proceed," Darville said. "We get the benefit of the doubt."

Of course, during a trial, the onus is on the prosecution to prove a defendant is guilty of those charges.

California DUI attorney news:

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Long Beach, Calififornia

A California man looking for a parking place hit nearly two dozen cars and two people during a wild ride was charged with drunk driving / DUI and hit-and-run.

David Wecksler, 31, of Long Beach, was charged with two misdemeanor counts including California DUI after the blocks-long accident spree in Belmont Heights.

Prosecutors contend that Wecksler was drunk when his GMC Sierra Truck sideswiped rows of parked cars on Feb. 15. Two people also were struck but had only minor scrapes.

According to a police report, Wecksler told officers he had been drinking while playing poker with some friends but contended a blown tire caused him to lose control of the car. Wecksler also complained that he could not see after the hood of his car popped up. He reportedly may have been looking for a place to park.

Wecksler allegedly has a 2003 conviction for DUI and his license was suspended 4 times.

Caught in the whirlwind of bad publicity that often surrounds Paris Hilton, NBC and ABC sought to distance themselves Friday from reports that they were opening their wallets in pursuit of an exclusive interview with the heiress after her release from jail.

ABC News said the Hilton family offered the interview to Barbara Walters, but that Walters and ABC News executive David Sloan turned it down on Friday, said an ABC News executive who said he would discuss the talks only on condition of anonymity.

NBC News, which has said it was interested in speaking to Hilton only if no money were involved, said no interview had been arranged. But the network did not immediately address contradictory media reports about whether it was still pursuing the interview.

The networks and Hilton family appeared anxious to avoid a public backlash over the idea that the wealthy hotel heiress, slated to be released early next week, would profit from her time in jail.

ABC backed off "because the process left us pretty cold," the executive said.

Earlier in the week, ABC News said it believed it had secured the Hilton interview with Walters. The network had agreed to pay the Hilton family up to $100,000 for the use of exclusive video and other material to go with the story. But ABC learned from the Hiltons that it had lost out to an "astronomical" offer from NBC, the executive said.

NBC News denied having an interview lined up with Hilton. "We don't pay for interviews and we'll never pay for interviews," spokeswoman Allison Gollust.

Although it's considered a journalistic sin to pay for interviews, the ban can be sidestepped in many ways for hotly contested ones. One is agreeing to pay for videos and other materials, and another is shifting negotiations to a network's entertainment division, which observes no such prohibitions.

A spokesman for the Hilton family issued a statement Thursday saying they had not requested any payment for an interview or related material. He did not immediately return a call for comment on Friday.

The New York Post, which had first reported ongoing talks over a post-jail interview, headlined a story Friday: "So Crime DOES pay, Paris."

A spokesman for OK! magazine said Hilton's representatives had approached them a few weeks ago to see if they were interested in pictures and an interview when she got out of jail.

"We didn't reciprocate with a bid," said spokesman Brian Strong.

Recently, NBC landed an exclusive interview with Britain's Princes William and Harry, which, conducted by Matt Lauer, aired Monday as an edition of "Dateline NBC." NBC also reportedly paid a fee in the low seven figures for American rights to air a concert next month in honor of their late mother, Diana, to mark the 10th anniversary of her death.

As for CBS News, "we have no interest in the interview," spokeswoman Leigh Farris said

SENATE BILL No. 177
Introduced by Senator Migden
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Spitzer)
(Coauthors: Senators Maldonado and Scott)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Lieu Coauthors: Assembly Members
Adams, Benoit, Blakeslee, Cook, DeSaulnier, DeVore, Duvall,
Emmerson, Gaines, Galgiani, Horton, Jeffries, La Malfa, Lieu, Maze,
Nakanishi, Parra, Plescia, Sharon Runner, Strickland, and Villines)
February 5, 2007
An act to amend Sections 13352, 14602.6, and 23575 of 13350,
13352, 13352.4, 13352.5, 13353.3, 13353.5, 13353.7, 23247, 23502,
23536, 23538, 23546, 23548, 23550.5, 23575, and 23576 of, to amend,
renumber, and add Section 13352.6 of, to add Sections 13352.7,
13352.8, 13352.81, 13352.82, 13352.85, 13353.71, 13353.72, 13353.73,
and 23575.5 to, and to repeal Section 13352.1 of, the Vehicle Code,
relating to vehicles.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 177, as amended, Migden. Driver’s license: DUI: ignition
interlock.
(1) Existing law requires a person’s privilege to operate a motor
vehicle to be suspended or revoked for a specified period of time if the
person has been convicted of violating specified provisions prohibiting
driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic
beverage or drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage
or drug, or with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood or who is addicted to the use of any drug. The time for which the
privilege is suspended depends on specified circumstances, including
98
prior convictions of driving under the influence offenses within a
specified time period. Existing law authorizes a person whose privilege
is suspended or revoked in that manner to receive a restricted driver’s
license if specified requirements are met, including, in some instances,
the installation of an ignition interlock device on the person’s vehicle.
This bill would revise and recast those suspension, revocation, and
restriction provisions, including, but not limited to, by increasing the
periods of suspensions or revocations and imposing ignition interlock
device requirements on a person whose license is suspended or revoked
or applies for and receives a restricted driver’s license.
(2) Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to
immediately administratively suspend the privilege of a person to
operate a motor vehicle if the person was driving a motor vehicle when
he or she had 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood.
Existing law specifies the period of that suspension depending on
specified circumstances, including prior convictions of related offenses
within a specified time period. Existing law authorizes a person whose
privilege was suspended in that manner to receive a restricted driver’s
license if specified requirements are met.
The bill would revise and recast those provisions, including by
authorizing restricted licenses in additional circumstances and imposing
additional requirements with respect to ignition interlock devices on
those restricted licenses.
(3) The bill would establish the Ignition Interlock Device Assistance
Fund in the State Treasury. The money in the fund would be available,
upon appropriation, to fund the installation of ignition interlock devices.
The bill would require a person who is convicted of specified driving
under the influence offenses to pay a fee of $100 to be deposited in the
fund.
The bill would require the Director of Motor Vehicles to establish
standards and criteria for implementing and maintaining an ignition
interlock device assistance program.
(4) The bill would make numerous technical and conforming changes.
(5) Because it is a crime to operate a vehicle that is not equipped
with a functioning, certified interlock device by a person whose driving
privilege is so restricted, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program, by expanding the scope of that crime.
(6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
98
SB 177 — 2 —
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law authorizes a court to require a person convicted of
a first offense violation of specified provisions prohibiting driving a
motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or a
combination of alcohol and any drug (DUI) to install a certified ignition
interlock device on any vehicle that the person owns or operates and to
prohibit that person from operating a motor vehicle unless it is so
equipped.
This bill would require the court to require that a person convicted
of a DUI offense to install a certified ignition interlock device on each
vehicle that the person owns or operates and to prohibit that person
from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is so equipped.
Because it is a crime to operate a vehicle that is not equipped with a
functioning, certified interlock device by a person whose driving
privilege is so restricted, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program by expanding the scope of that crime.
(2) Existing law allows a peace officer in conjunction with an
immediate arrest to cause the removal and seizure of a motor vehicle
when a person is driving a motor vehicle while his or her driving
privilege is suspended or revoked, when driving a vehicle while his or
her driving privilege is restricted to the operation of a motor vehicle
that is equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device and the
vehicle is not so equipped, and when driving without ever having been
issued a driver’s license.
This bill would specify that for the purposes of the removal and
seizure of a motor vehicle, an immediate arrest includes the issuance
of a notice to appear.
(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.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
98
— 3 — SB 177
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
SECTION 1. Section 13350 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
13350. (a) The department immediately shall revoke the
privilege of any a person to drive a motor vehicle upon receipt of
a duly certified abstract of the record of any a court showing that
the person has been convicted of any of the following crimes or
offenses:
(1) Failure of the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident
resulting in injury or death to any a person to stop or otherwise
comply with Section 20001.
(2) Any A felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle
is used, except as provided in Section 13351, 13352, or 13357.
(3) Reckless driving causing bodily injury.
(b) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23546, 23550, or 23550.5, or a violation
of Section 23153 punishable under Section 23550.5 or 23566,
including a violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) (b) of
Section 192 191.5 of the Penal Code as provided in Section 193.7
of that code, the court shall, at the time of surrender of the driver’s
license or temporary permit, require the defendant to sign an
affidavit in a form provided by the department acknowledging his
or her understanding of the revocation or suspension required by
paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, and
an acknowledgment of his or her designation as a habitual traffic
offender. A copy of this affidavit shall be transmitted, with the
license or temporary permit, to the department within the prescribed
10 days.
(c) The department shall not reinstate the privilege revoked
under subdivision (a) until the expiration of one year after the date
of revocation and until the person whose privilege was revoked
gives proof of financial responsibility as defined in Section 16430.
SEC. 2. Section 13352 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13352. (a) The department shall immediately suspend or
revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon
the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court showing that the
person has been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153
or subdivision (a) of Section 23109, or upon the receipt of a report
of a judge of the juvenile court, a juvenile traffic hearing officer,
98
SB 177 — 4 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
or a referee of a juvenile court showing that the person has been
found to have committed a violation of Section 23152 or 23153
or subdivision (a) of Section 23109. If an offense specified in this
section occurs in a vehicle defined in Section 15210, the suspension
or revocation specified below shall apply to the noncommercial
driving privilege. The commercial driving privilege shall be
disqualified as specified in Sections 15300 to 15302, inclusive.
For the purposes of this section, suspension or revocation shall be
as follows:
(1) Except as required under Section 13352.1 or Section
13352.4, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section
23152 punishable under Section 23536, the privilege shall be
suspended for a period of six months one year.
The privilege may shall not be reinstated until the person gives
proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of a
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code described in subdivision (b)
of Section 23538. If the court, as authorized under paragraph (3)
of subdivision (b) of Section 23646, elects to order a person to
enroll, participate, and complete either program described in
paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the department
shall require that program in lieu of the program described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23538. For the purposes of this
paragraph, enrollment, participation, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit may shall not be given to any for program
activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(2) Upon Except as required under Section 13352.8, upon a
conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable
under Section 23554, the privilege shall be suspended for a period
of one year two years. The privilege may shall not be reinstated
until the person gives proof of financial responsibility and gives
proof satisfactory to the department of successful 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 23556. If the court, as authorized under paragraph
(3) of subdivision (b) of Section 23646, elects to order a person
to enroll, participate, and complete either program described in
paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the department
98
— 5 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
shall require that program in lieu of the program described in
Section 23556. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment,
participation, and completion of an approved program shall be
subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit may shall
not be given to any for program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation.
(3) Except as provided in Section 13352.5, upon a conviction
or finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23540, the privilege shall be suspended for two three years. The
privilege may shall not be reinstated until the person gives proof
of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful 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 23542. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall
not be given to any for program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after completion of 12 months of the suspension period, which
may include credit for a suspension period served under subdivision
(c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the department
for a restricted driver’s license, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily provided, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) Proof of enrollment in an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) Proof of enrollment in a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person’s residence or employment.
(B) The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to
continue satisfactory participation in the program described in
subparagraph (A).
(C) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(D) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device
as required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
98
SB 177 — 6 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(E) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(F) The person pays all administrative fees or reissue fees and
any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(4) Except as provided in this paragraph required under Section
13352.81, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section
23153 punishable under Section 23560, the privilege shall be
revoked suspended for a period of three four years. The privilege
may shall not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial
responsibility, and the person gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful 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 23562. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall
not be given to any for program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after the completion of 12 months of the revocation period,
which may include credit for a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the
department for a restricted driver’s license, subject to the following
conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person’s residence or employment, and the person agrees, as
a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in that 30-month program.
(B) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
98
— 7 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device
as required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(F) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(5) Except as provided in this paragraph required under Section
13352.6, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section
23152 punishable under Section 23546, the privilege shall be
revoked suspended for a period of three five years. The privilege
may shall not be reinstated until the person files proof of financial
responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of
successful completion of one of the following programs: an
18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant
to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 23548, or, if available in the
county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall
not be given to any for program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which
may include credit for a suspension period served under subdivision
(c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the department
for a restricted driver’s license, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person’s residence or employment, and the person agrees, as
98
SB 177 — 8 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device
as required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23546 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county
of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown,
the court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(6) Except as provided in this paragraph required under Section
13352.82, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section
23153 punishable under Section 23550.5 or 23566, the privilege
shall be revoked suspended for a period of five seven years. The
privilege may shall not be reinstated until the person gives proof
of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department
of successful completion of one of the following programs: an
18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant
to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23568 or, if available in the county of
the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall
not be given to any for program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after the completion of 12 months of the revocation period,
98
— 9 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
which may include credit for a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the
department for a restricted driver’s license, subject to the following
conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person’s residence or employment, and the person agrees, as
a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(ii) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is
unavailable in the person’s county of residence or employment.
(B) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device
as required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23153
punishable under Section 23566 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program or, if available in the county
of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown,
the court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(7) Except as provided in this paragraph required under Section
13352.7, upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section
23152 punishable under Section 23550 or 23550.5, or Section
23153 punishable under Section 23550.5, the privilege shall be
revoked for a period of four years life. The privilege may shall not
98
SB 177 — 10 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
be reinstated pursuant to Section 13352.7 until the person gives
proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of one of the following
programs: an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code,
or, if available in the county of the person’s residence or
employment, a 30-month driving-under-the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code,
or a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the
purposes of this paragraph, enrollment, participation, and
completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date
of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any for
program activities completed prior to the date of the current
violation. The department shall advise the person that after the
completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which may
include credit for a suspension period served under subdivision
(c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the department
for a restricted driver’s license, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person’s residence or employment, and the person agrees, as
a condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device
as required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23550 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program or, if available in the county
98
— 11 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown,
the court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(8) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision
(a) of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (e) of
that section, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of 90
days to six months, if ordered by the court. The privilege may shall
not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial
responsibility, as defined in Section 16430.
(9) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision
(a) of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (f) of
that section, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of six
months, if ordered by the court. The privilege may shall not be
reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility,
as defined in Section 16430.
(b) For the purpose of paragraphs (2) to (9), inclusive, of
subdivision (a), the finding of the juvenile court judge, the juvenile
hearing officer, or the referee of a juvenile court of a commission
of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 or subdivision (a) of
Section 23109, as specified in subdivision (a) of this section, is a
conviction.
(c) A judge of a juvenile court, juvenile hearing officer, or
referee of a juvenile court shall immediately report the findings
specified in subdivision (a) to the department.
(d) A conviction of an offense in a state, territory, or possession
of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, or Canada that, if committed in this state, would
be a violation of Section 23152, is a conviction of Section 23152
for the purposes of this section, and a conviction of an offense
that, if committed in this state, would be a violation of Section
23153, is a conviction of Section 23153 for the purposes of this
section. The department shall suspend or revoke the privilege to
operate a motor vehicle pursuant to this section upon receiving
notice of that conviction.
98
SB 177 — 12 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(e) For the purposes of the restriction conditions specified in
paragraphs (3) to (7), inclusive, of subdivision (a), the department
shall terminate the restriction imposed pursuant to this section and
shall suspend or revoke the person’s driving privilege upon receipt
of notification from the driving-under-the-influence program that
the person has failed to comply with the program requirements.
The person’s driving privilege shall remain suspended or revoked
for the remaining period of the original suspension or revocation
imposed under this section and until all reinstatement requirements
described in this section are met.
(f)
(e) For the purposes of this section, completion of a program is
the following:
(1) Satisfactory completion of all program requirements
approved pursuant to program licensure, as evidenced by a
certificate of completion issued, under penalty of perjury, by the
licensed program.
(2) Certification, under penalty of perjury, by the director of a
program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code, that the
person has completed a program specified in Section 8001 of the
Penal Code.
(g)
(f) 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 this section
is not eligible for the restricted driver’s license authorized under
paragraphs (3) to (7), inclusive, of subdivision (a) by Section
13352.5, 13352.6, 13352.7, 13352.81, or 13352.82.
SEC. 3. Section 13352.1 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.
13352.1. (a) Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 13352 and
except required under Section 13352.4, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23536, if the court refers the person to a program pursuant to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 23538, the privilege
shall be suspended for ten months.
(b) The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives
proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of a
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
98
— 13 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
11836 of the Health and Safety Code described in subdivision (b)
of Section 23538. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment,
participation, and completion of an approved program shall be
subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit may not be
given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the
current violation.
SEC. 4. Section 13352.4 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
13352.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (h) (f), 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 or Section 13352.1, 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 the “Verification of Installation” of an ignition
interlock device form described in Section 13386 for his or her
vehicle.
(2)
(3) Submits proof of financial responsibility, as defined in
Section 16430.
(3)
(4) 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 Section 13352.1, or until
the date all reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352
or Section 13352.1 have been met, whichever date is later, and
may include credit for any a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3 or a restriction period served
under Section 13353.7.
(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
98
SB 177 — 14 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
to and from activities required in the driving-under-the-influence
program.
(d)
(c) 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)
(d) 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 shall not be given to a
program activity completed prior to the date of the current
violation.
(f)
(e) (1) 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 or Section 13352.1 immediately upon receipt of notification
from the driving-under-the-influence program that the of either of
the following:
(A) The person has failed to comply with the
driving-under-the-influence program requirements. The
(B) The person attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with,
or failed to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a
motor vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device,
while the restriction of the driving privilege is in effect as described
in subdivision (b).
(2) The privilege shall remain suspended until the final day of
the original suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision
(a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, or until the date all
reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352 or Section
13352.1 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 or Section 13352.1 is not
98
— 15 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
eligible for the restricted driver’s license authorized under this
section.
(h)
(f) 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 shall not issue
a restricted driver’s license under this section.
(g) For purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include a
motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device that
can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to this section
shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the period in
which he or she is required to have an ignition interlock device.
SEC. 5. Section 13352.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
13352.5. (a) The Except as provided in subdivision (f), the
department shall issue a restricted driver’s license to a person
whose driver’s license was suspended under paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if all of the following
requirements have been met:
(1) 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 23542 has been received
in the department’s headquarters.
(2) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” of an
ignition interlock device form described in Section 13386 for his
or her vehicle.
(2)
(3) The person submits proof of financial responsibility, as
described in Section 16430.
(3)
(4) The person completes not less than 12 months of the
suspension period imposed under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a)
of Section 13352. The 12 months may include credit for any a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(4)
(5) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
98
SB 177 — 16 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(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 (3)
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 a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3
or a restriction period served under Section 13353.71.
(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)
(c) 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)
(d) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation,
and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the
date of the current violation. No credit may Credit shall not be
given to any for program activities completed prior to the date of
the current violation.
(f)
(e) (1) The department shall terminate the restriction imposed
pursuant to issued under this section and shall suspend the privilege
to drive under operate a motor vehicle pursuant to paragraph (3)
of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 immediately upon receipt of
notification from the driving-under-the-influence program that the
of either of the following:
(A) The person has failed to comply with the
driving-under-the-influence program requirements.
(B) The person attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with,
or failed to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a
motor vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device,
98
— 17 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
while the restriction of the driving privilege is in effect as described
in subdivision (b).
(g)
(f) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination,
as authorized under subdivision (b) of Section 23540 or subdivision
(d) of Section 23542, to disallow the issuance of a restricted
driver’s license, the department may shall not issue a restricted
driver’s license under this section.
(h) Any person restricted pursuant to this section may apply to
the department for a restricted driver’s license, subject to the
conditions specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352. Whenever proof of financial responsibility has already
been provided and a restriction fee has been paid in compliance
with restrictions described in this section, and the offender
subsequently receives an ignition interlock device restriction
described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352,
the proof of financial responsibility period shall not be extended
beyond the previously established term and no additional restriction
fee shall be required.
(i) This section applies to a person who meets all of the
following conditions:
(1) Has been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 that
occurred on or before July 1, 1999, and is punishable under Section
23540, or former Section 23165.
(2) Was granted probation for the conviction subject to
conditions imposed under subdivision (b) of Section 23542, or
under subdivision (b) of former Section 23166.
(3) Is no longer subject to the probation described in paragraph
(2).
(4) Has not completed the licensed driving-under-the-influence
program under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352
for reinstatement of the driving privilege.
(5) Has no violations in his or her driving record that would
preclude issuance of a restricted driver’s license.
(j) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.
(g) For purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include a
motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device that
can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to this section
shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the period in
which he or she is required to have an ignition interlock device.
98
SB 177 — 18 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
SEC. 6. Section 13352.6 of the Vehicle Code is amended and
renumbered to read:
13352.6.
13352.9. (a) The department shall immediately suspend the
driving privilege of any a person who is 18 years of age or older
and is convicted of a violation of Section 23140, upon the receipt
of a duly certified abstract of the record of any a court showing
that conviction. The privilege may shall not be reinstated until the
person provides the department with proof of financial
responsibility and until proof satisfactory to the department, of
successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program
licensed under Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code has
been received in the department’s headquarters. That attendance
shall be as follows:
(1) If, within 10 years of the current violation of Section 23140,
the person has not been convicted of a separate violation of Section
23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 23103, with a plea of guilty
under Section 23103.5, or of Section 655 of the Harbors and
Navigation Code, or of Section 191.5 of, or paragraph (3) of
subdivision (c) (a) of Section 192 192.5 of, the Penal Code, the
person shall complete, at a minimum, the education component of
that licensed driving-under-the-influence program.
(2) If the person does not meet the requirements of paragraph
(1), the person shall complete, at a minimum, the program
described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 11837 of
the Health and Safety Code.
(b) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation,
and completion of the program shall be subsequent to the date of
the current violation. Credit for enrollment, participation, or
completion may shall not be given for any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation.
SEC. 7. Section 13352.6 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
13352.6. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (f), the
department shall issue a restricted driver’s license to a person
whose driver’s license was suspended under paragraph (5) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if all of the following
requirements have been met:
(1) 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
98
— 19 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
described in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 23548, has been
received in the department’s headquarters.
(2) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” of an
ignition interlock device form described in Section 13386 for his
or her vehicle.
(3) The person submits proof of financial responsibility, as
described in Section 16430.
(4) The person completes not less than 18 months of the
suspension period imposed under paragraph (5) of subdivision
(a) of Section 13352. The 18 months may include credit for a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(5) The person 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 (5)
of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, or until the date all
reinstatement requirements described in paragraph (5) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 have been met, whichever date
is later, and may include credit for a suspension period served
under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3 or a restriction period
served under Section 13353.72.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 shall not be given for
program activities completed prior to the date of the current
violation.
(e) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under
this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352 immediately upon receipt of notification of either of the
following:
98
SB 177 — 20 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(1) The person failed to comply with the
driving-under-the-influence program requirements.
(2) The person attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with, or
failed to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a motor
vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device, while
the restriction of the driving privilege is in effect as described in
subdivision (b).
(f) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination to
disallow the issuance of a restricted driver’s license because,
considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court
determines that the person would present a traffic or public safety
risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of
restriction authorized by this section, the department shall not
issue a restricted driver’s license under this section.
(g) For the purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include
a motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device
that can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to this
section shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the period
in which he or she is required to have an ignition interlock device.
SEC. 8. Section 13352.7 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
13352.7. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the
department shall issue a restricted driver’s license to a person
whose driver’s license was revoked under paragraph (7) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if all of the following
requirements have been met:
(1) 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) or (c) of Section 23548, has been
received in the department’s headquarters.
(2) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” of an
ignition interlock device form described in Section 13386 for his
or her vehicle.
(3) The person submits proof of financial responsibility, as
described in Section 16430.
(4) The person completes not less than 24 months of the
revocation period imposed under paragraph (7) of subdivision (a)
of Section 13352. The 24 months may include credit for a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
98
— 21 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(5) The person 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 may include credit for a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 shall not be given for
program activities completed prior to the date of the current
violation.
(e) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under
this section and shall revoke the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352 immediately upon receipt of notification of either of the
following:
(1) The person failed to comply with the
driving-under-the-influence program requirements.
(2) The person attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with, or
failed to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a motor
vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device, while
the restriction is in effect.
(f) (1) After completing seven years of restriction under this
section, the person may submit a request to the department for an
administrative review for the purpose of reinstating his or her
driving privilege free of the restriction.
(2) The department shall reinstate the person’s driving privilege
if the department finds that the person has not been convicted of
a driving-related offense during the previous seven years.
(g) Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352, the department may reinstate a person’s privilege to operate
a motor vehicle pursuant to subdivision (f).
(h) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination
to disallow the issuance of a restricted driver’s license because,
98
SB 177 — 22 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court
determines that the person would present a traffic or public safety
risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of
restriction authorized by this section, the department shall not
issue a restricted driver’s license under this section.
(i) For the purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include
a motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device
that can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to this
section shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the period
in which he or she is required to have an ignition interlock device.
SEC. 9. Section 13352.8 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
13352.8. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (f), the
department shall issue a restricted driver’s license to a person
whose driver’s license was suspended under paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if all of the following
requirements have been met:
(1) 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 or paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b) of Section 23646 has been received in the
department’s headquarters.
(2) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” of an
ignition interlock device form described in Section 13386 for his
or her vehicle.
(3) The person submits proof of financial responsibility, as
described in Section 16430.
(4) The person completes not less than 12 months of the
suspension period imposed under paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a) of Section 13352. The 12 months may include credit for a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(5) The person 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 (2)
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 a
98
— 23 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3
or a restriction period served under Section 13353.7.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 shall not be given for
program activities completed prior to the date of the current
violation.
(e) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under
this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352 immediately upon receipt of notification of either of the
following:
(1) The person failed to comply with the
driving-under-the-influence program requirements.
(2) The person attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with, or
failed to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a motor
vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device, while
the restriction of the driving privilege is in effect as described in
subdivision (b).
(f) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination to
disallow the issuance of a restricted driver’s license because,
considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court
determines that the person would present a traffic or public safety
risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of
restriction authorized by this section, the department shall not
issue a restricted driver’s license under this section.
(g) For the purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include
a motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device
that can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to this
section shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the period
in which he or she is required to have an ignition interlock device.
SEC. 10. Section 13352.81 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
98
SB 177 — 24 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
13352.81. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (f), the
department shall issue a restricted driver’s license to a person
whose driver’s license was suspended under paragraph (4) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if all of the following
requirements have been met:
(1) 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 23562 has been received
in the department’s headquarters.
(2) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” of an
ignition interlock device form described in Section 13386 for his
or her vehicle.
(3) The person submits proof of financial responsibility, as
described in Section 16430.
(4) The person completes not less than 18 months of the
suspension period imposed under paragraph (4) of subdivision
(a) of Section 13352. The 18 months may include credit for a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(5) The person 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 (4)
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 a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3
or a restricted period served under Section 13353.71.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 shall not be given for
98
— 25 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
program activities completed prior to the date of the current
violation.
(e) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under
this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352 immediately upon receipt of notification of either of the
following:
(1) The person failed to comply with the
driving-under-the-influence program requirements.
(2) The person attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with, or
failed to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a motor
vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device, while
the restriction of the driving privilege is in effect as described in
subdivision (b).
(f) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination to
disallow the issuance of a restricted driver’s license because,
considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court
determines that the person would present a traffic or public safety
risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of
restriction authorized by this section, the department shall not
issue a restricted driver’s license under this section.
(g) For the purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include
a motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device
that can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to this
section shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the period
in which he or she is required to have an ignition interlock device.
SEC. 11. Section 13352.82 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
13352.82. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (f), the
department shall issue a restricted driver’s license to a person
whose driver’s license was suspended under paragraph (6) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if all of the following
requirements have been met:
(1) 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 23568, or if available in
the county of the person’s residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
98
SB 177 — 26 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Section 8001 of the Penal Code, has been received in the
department’s headquarters.
(2) The person submits the “Verification of Installation” of an
ignition interlock device form described in Section 13386 for his
or her vehicle.
(3) The person submits proof of financial responsibility, as
described in Section 16430.
(4) The person completes not less than 24 months of the
suspension period imposed under paragraph (6) of subdivision
(a) of Section 13352. The 24 months may include credit for a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(5) The person 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 (6)
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 a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3
or a restriction period served under Section 13353.72.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 shall not be given for
program activities completed prior to the date of the current
violation.
(e) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under
this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352 immediately upon receipt of notification of either of the
following:
(1) The person failed to comply with the
driving-under-the-influence program requirements.
98
— 27 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(2) The person attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with, or
failed to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a motor
vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device, while
the restriction of the driving privilege is in effect as described in
subdivision (b).
(f) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination to
disallow the issuance of a restricted driver’s license because,
considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court
determines that the person would present a traffic or public safety
risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of
restriction authorized by this section, the department shall not
issue a restricted driver’s license under this section.
(g) For the purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include
a motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device
that can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to this
section shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the period
in which he or she is required to have an ignition interlock device.
SEC. 12. Section 13352.85 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
13352.85. (a) A person whose driving privilege is suspended
or revoked pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 13352 shall
install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles that the person
owns or operates, and is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle
unless the vehicle is equipped with a functioning, certified ignition
interlock device and the person is otherwise authorized to operate
a motor vehicle with that device.
(b) Nothing in this section authorizes a person to operate a
vehicle without a valid driver’s license.
(c) If a person has a medical condition that does not permit the
person to breathe with sufficient strength to activate the device,
the person shall only have the suspension or revocation option
pursuant to Section 13352, and is not eligible for a restricted
driver’s license.
(d) Pursuant to this section, an out-of-state resident who
otherwise would qualify for an ignition interlock device restricted
driver’s license in California shall be prohibited from operating
a motor vehicle in California unless that vehicle is equipped with
a functioning ignition interlock device. An ignition interlock device
is not required to be installed on a vehicle owned by the defendant
that is not driven in California.
98
SB 177 — 28 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(e) For purposes of this section “owned” means solely owned
or owned in conjunction with another person or legal entity. For
purposes of this section “operates” includes operating a vehicle
that is not owned by the person subject to this section.
(f) For purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include a
motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device that
can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to this section
shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the period in
which he or she is required to have an ignition interlock device.
SEC. 13. Section 13353.3 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
13353.3. (a) An order of suspension of a person’s privilege to
operate a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 13353.2 shall become
effective 30 days after the person is served with the notice pursuant
to Section 13382 or 13388, or subdivision (b) of Section 13353.2.
(b) The period of suspension of a person’s privilege to operate
a motor vehicle under Section 13353.2 is as follows:
(1) Except as provided in Section 13353.6, if If the person has
not been convicted of a separate violation of Section 23103, as
specified in Section 23103.5, of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153,
of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code, or of paragraph (3) of
subdivision (c) (a) of Section 192 192.5 of that code, the person
has not been administratively determined to have refused chemical
testing pursuant to Section 13353 or 13353.1, or the person has
not been administratively determined to have been driving with
an excessive concentration of alcohol pursuant to Section 13353.2
on a separate occasion, that offense or occurrence occurred within
10 years of the occasion in question, the person’s privilege to
operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended for four months.
(2) If the person has been convicted of one or more separate
violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5,
Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, Section 191.5 of the Penal Code,
or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) (a) of Section 192 192.5 of that
code, the person has been administratively determined to have
refused chemical testing pursuant to Section 13353 or 13353.1, or
the person has been administratively determined to have been
driving with an excessive concentration of alcohol pursuant to
Section 13353.2 on a separate occasion, that offense or occasion
occurred within 10 years of the occasion in question, the person’s
98
— 29 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended for one
year.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a person has
been administratively determined to have been driving in violation
of Section 23136 or to have refused chemical testing pursuant to
Section 13353.1, the period of suspension shall not be for less than
one year.
(c) If a person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle is
suspended pursuant to Section 13353.2 and the person is convicted
of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, including, but not limited
to, a violation described in Section 23620, arising out of the same
occurrence, both the suspension under Section 13353.2 and the
suspension or revocation under Section 13352 shall be imposed,
except that the periods of suspension or revocation shall run
concurrently, and the total period of suspension or revocation shall
not exceed the longer of the two suspension or revocation periods.
(d) For the purposes of this section, a conviction of any an
offense in any a state, territory, or possession of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
the Dominion of Canada that, if committed in this state, would be
a violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or
Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or Section 191.5 or paragraph
(3) of subdivision (c) (a) of Section 192 192.5 of the Penal Code,
is a conviction of that particular section of the Vehicle Code or
Penal Code.
(e) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.
SEC. 14. Section 13353.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
13353.5. (a) If a person whose driving privilege is suspended
or revoked under Section 13352, former Section 13352.4, Section
13352.4, 13352.6 13352.9, paragraph (1) of subdivision (g) of
Section 23247, or paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 23575
is a resident of another state at the time the mandatory period of
suspension or revocation expires, the department may terminate
the suspension or revocation, upon written application of the
person, for the purpose of allowing the person to apply for a license
in his or her state of residence. The application shall include, but
need not be limited to, evidence satisfactory to the department that
the applicant now resides in another state.
98
SB 177 — 30 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(b) If the person submits an application for a California driver’s
license within three years after the date of the action to terminate
suspension or revocation pursuant to subdivision (a), a license
shall not be issued until evidence satisfactory to the department
establishes that the person is qualified for reinstatement and no
grounds exist including, but not limited to, one or more subsequent
convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or other
drugs that would support a refusal to issue a license. The
department may waive the three-year requirement if the person
provides the department with proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430, and proof satisfactory to the department
of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program
described in Section 13352, and the driving-under-the-influence
program is of the length required under paragraphs (1) to (7),
inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 13352.
(c) For the purposes of this section, “state” includes a foreign
province or country.
(d) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.
SEC. 15. Section 13353.7 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
13353.7. (a) Subject to subdivision (c), if the person whose
driving privilege has been suspended under Section 13353.2 has
not been convicted of, or found to have committed, a separate
violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or
Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of this code, or Section 191.5 or
paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) (a) of Section 192 192.5 of the
Penal Code, and if the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle
has not been suspended or revoked pursuant to Section 13353 or
13353.2 for an offense that occurred on a separate occasion within
10 years of the occasion in question and, if the person subsequently
enrolls in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed under
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23538, and installs and maintains an
ignition interlock device certified pursuant to Section 13386 on
all vehicles that the person owns or operates, that person, if 21
years of age or older at the time the offense occurred, may apply
to the department for a restricted driver’s license limited to travel
to and from the activities required by the program and to and from
and in the course of the person’s employment. After receiving
proof of enrollment in the program, and the “Verification of
98
— 31 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Installation” of an ignition interlock device form described in
Section 13386, and if the person has not been arrested subsequent
to the offense for which the person’s driving privilege has been
suspended under Section 13353.2 for a violation of Section 23103,
as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23140, 23152, or 23153
of this code, or Section 191.5 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c)
(a) of Section 192 192.5 of the Penal Code, and if the person’s
privilege to operate a motor vehicle has not been suspended or
revoked pursuant to Section 13353 or 13353.2 for an offense that
occurred on a separate occasion, notwithstanding Section 13551,
the department shall, after review pursuant to Section 13557,
suspend the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for 30
days and then issue the person a restricted driver’s license under
the following conditions:
(1) The program shall report any a failure to participate in the
program to the department and shall certify successful completion
of the program to the department.
(2) The person was 21 years of age or older at the time the
offense occurred and gives proof of financial responsibility as
defined in Section 16430.
(3) The restriction shall be imposed for a period of five months.
(4) If a person who has been issued a restricted license under
this section fails at any time to participate in the program, the
department shall suspend the restricted license immediately. The
department shall give notice of the suspension under this paragraph
in the same manner as prescribed in subdivision (b) of Section
13353.2 for the period specified in Section 13353.3, that is effective
upon receipt of the notice by the person.
(5) If a person who has been issued a restricted license under
this section attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with, or fails
to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a motor
vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device, within
the time described in Section 13353.73, the department shall
suspend the restricted license immediately. The department shall
give notice of the suspension under this paragraph in the same
manner as prescribed in subdivision (b) of Section 13353.2 for the
period specified in Section 13353.3, that is effective upon receipt
of the notice by the person.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), and upon a conviction of
Section 23152 or 23153, the department shall suspend or revoke
98
SB 177 — 32 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle under Section
13352.
(c) If the holder of a commercial driver’s license was operating
a commercial vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the time of
the violation that resulted in the suspension of that person’s driving
privilege under Section 13353.2, the department shall, pursuant
to this section, if the person is otherwise eligible, issue the person
a class C driver’s license restricted in the same manner and subject
to the same conditions as specified in subdivision (a), except that
the license may not allow travel to and from or in the course of
the person’s employment.
(d) This section does not apply to a person whose driving
privilege has been suspended or revoked pursuant to Section 13353
or 13353.2 for an offense that occurred on a separate occasion, or
as a result of a conviction of a separate violation of Section 23103,
as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23140, 23152, or 23153,
that violation occurred within 10 years of the offense in question.
This subdivision shall be operative only so long as a one-year
suspension of the driving privilege for a second or subsequent
occurrence or offense, with no restricted or hardship licenses
permitted, is required by Section 408 or 410 of Title 23 of the
United States Code.
(e) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.
SEC. 16. Section 13353.71 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
13353.71. (a) Subject to subdivision (c), if the person whose
driving privilege has been suspended under Section 13353.2 has
been convicted of, or found to have committed, one prior separate
violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or
Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of this code, or Section 191.5 or
subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code and, if the
person subsequently enrolls in a driving-under-the-influence
program licensed under Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542, and installs
and maintains an ignition interlock device certified pursuant to
Section 13386, on all vehicles registered in the person’s name,
that person, if 21 years of age or older at the time the offense
occurred, may apply to the department for a restricted driver’s
license. After receiving proof of enrollment in the program and
the “Verification of Installation” of an ignition interlock device
98
— 33 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
form described in Section 13386, and if the person has not been
arrested subsequent to the offense for which the person’s driving
privilege has been suspended under Section 13353.2 for a violation
of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23140,
23152, or 23153 of this code, or Section 191.5 or subdivision (a)
of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, and if the person’s privilege
to operate a motor vehicle has not been suspended or revoked
pursuant to Section 13353 for an offense that occurred on a
separate occasion, notwithstanding Section 13551, the department
shall, after review as described in Section 13557, suspend the
person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for 90 days and then
issue the person a restricted driver’s license under the following
conditions:
(1) The program shall report a failure to participate in the
program to the department and shall certify successful completion
of the program to the department.
(2) The person was 21 years of age or older at the time the
offense occurred and gives proof of financial responsibility as
defined in Section 16430.
(3) The restriction shall be imposed for a period of 21 months.
(4) If a person who has been issued a restricted license under
this section fails at any time to participate in the program, the
department shall suspend the restricted license immediately. The
department shall give notice of the suspension under this
paragraph in the same manner as prescribed in subdivision (b) of
Section 13353.2 for the period specified in Section 13353.3, that
is effective upon receipt of the notice by the person.
(5) If a person who has been issued a restricted license under
this section attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with, or fails
to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a motor
vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device, within
the time described in Section 13353.73, the department shall
suspend the restricted license immediately. The department shall
give notice of the suspension under this paragraph in the same
manner as prescribed in subdivision (b) of Section 13353.2 for the
period specified in Section 13353.3, that is effective upon receipt
of the notice by the person.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), and upon a conviction of
Section 23152 or 23153, the department shall suspend or revoke
98
SB 177 — 34 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle under Section
13352.
(c) If the holder of a commercial driver’s license was operating
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the
time of the violation that resulted in the suspension of that person’s
driving privilege under Section 13353.2, the department shall,
pursuant to this section, if the person is otherwise eligible, issue
the person a class C driver’s license restricted in the same manner
and subject to the same conditions as specified in subdivision (a).
SEC. 17. Section 13353.72 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
13353.72. (a) Subject to subdivision (c), if the person whose
driving privilege has been suspended under Section 13353.2 has
been convicted of, or found to have committed, two or more prior
separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section
23103.5, or Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of this code, or Section
191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code and,
if the person subsequently enrolls in a driving-under-the-influence
program licensed under Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code, as described in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 23548, and
installs and maintains an ignition interlock device certified
pursuant to Section 13386, on all motor vehicles registered in that
person’s name, that person, if 21 years of age or older at the time
the offense occurred, may apply to the department for a restricted
driver’s license. After receiving proof of enrollment in the program
and the “Verification of Installation” of an ignition interlock device
form described in Section 13386, and if the person has not been
arrested subsequent to the offense for which the person’s driving
privilege has been suspended under Section 13353.2 for a violation
of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23140,
23152, or 23153 of this code, or Section 191.5 or subdivision (a)
of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, and if the person’s privilege
to operate a motor vehicle has not been suspended or revoked
pursuant to Section 13353 for an offense that occurred on a
separate occasion, notwithstanding Section 13551, the department
shall, after review as described in Section 13557, suspend the
person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for six months and
then issue the person a restricted driver’s license under the
following conditions:
98
— 35 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(1) The program shall report a failure to participate in the
program to the department and shall certify successful completion
of the program to the department.
(2) The person was 21 years of age or older at the time the
offense occurred and gives proof of financial responsibility as
defined in Section 16430.
(3) The restriction shall be imposed for a period of 30 months.
(4) If a person who has been issued a restricted license under
this section fails at any time to participate in the program, the
department shall suspend the restricted license immediately. The
department shall give notice of the suspension under this
paragraph in the same manner as prescribed in subdivision (b) of
Section 13353.2 for the period specified in Section 13353.3, that
is effective upon receipt of the notice by the person.
(5) If a person who has been issued a restricted license under
this section attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with, or fails
to maintain the ignition interlock device, or operates a motor
vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device, within
the time described in Section 13353.73, the department shall
suspend the restricted license immediately. The department shall
give notice of the suspension under this paragraph in the same
manner as prescribed in subdivision (b) of Section 13353.2 for the
period specified in Section 13353.3, that is effective upon receipt
of the notice by the person.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), and upon a conviction of
Section 23152 or 23153, the department shall suspend or revoke
the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle under Section
13352.
(c) If the holder of a commercial driver’s license was operating
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the
time of the violation that resulted in the suspension of that person’s
driving privilege under Section 13353.2, the department shall,
pursuant to this section, if the person is otherwise eligible, issue
the person a class C driver’s license restricted in the same manner
and subject to the same conditions as specified in subdivision (a).
SEC. 18. Section 13373.73 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
13373.73. (a) A person issued a restricted driver’s license
pursuant to Section 13353.7 shall install and maintain an ignition
interlock device for six months. Installation may occur 30 days
98
SB 177 — 36 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
after the issuance of the notice pursuant to Section 13382 or
subdivision (b) of Section 13353.2.
(b) A person issued a restricted driver’s license pursuant to
Section 13353.71 shall install and maintain an ignition interlock
device for two years. Installation may occur 30 days after the
issuance of the notice pursuant to Section 13382 or subdivision
(b) of Section 13353.2.
(c) A person issued a restricted driver’s license pursuant to
Section 13353.72 shall install and maintain an ignition interlock
device for three years. Installation may occur 30 days after the
issuance of the notice pursuant to Section 13382 or subdivision
(b) of Section 13353.2.
SEC. 19. Section 23247 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23247. (a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly rent, lease,
or lend a motor vehicle to another person known to have had his
or her driving privilege restricted as provided in Section 13352,
13352.4, 13352.5, 13352.6, 13352.7, 13352.8, 13352.81, 13352.82,
13353.7, 13353.71, 13353.72, or 23575, unless the vehicle is
equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device.
Any A person, whose driving privilege is restricted pursuant to
Section 13352, 13352.4, 13352.5, 13352.6, 13352.7, 13352.8,
13352.81, 13352.82, 13353.7, 13353.71, 13353.72, or 23575 shall
notify any other another person who rents, leases, or loans a motor
vehicle to him or her of the driving restriction imposed under that
section.
(b) It is unlawful for any a person whose driving privilege is
restricted pursuant to Section 13352, 13352.4, 13352.5, 13352.6,
13352.7, 13352.8, 13352.81, 13352.82, 13353.7, 13353.71,
13353.72, or 23575 to request or solicit any other another person
to blow into an ignition interlock device or to start a motor vehicle
equipped with the device for the purpose of providing the person
so restricted with an operable motor vehicle.
(c) It is unlawful to blow into an ignition interlock device or to
start a motor vehicle equipped with the device for the purpose of
providing an operable motor vehicle to a person whose driving
privilege is restricted pursuant to Section 13352, 13352.4, 13352.5,
13352.6, 13352.7, 13352.8, 13352.81, 13352.82, 13352.7,
13353.71, 13353.72, or 23575.
98
— 37 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(d) It is unlawful to remove, bypass, or tamper with, an ignition
interlock device.
(e) It is unlawful for any a person whose driving privilege is
restricted pursuant to Section 13352, 13352.4, 13352.5, 13352.6,
13352.7, 13352.8, 13352.81, 13352.82, 13353.7, 13353.71,
13353.72, or 23575 to operate any a vehicle that is not equipped
with a functioning ignition interlock device.
(f) Any A person convicted of a violation of this section shall
be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than
six months or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars
($5,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(g) (1) If any a person whose driving privilege is restricted
pursuant to Section 13352 is convicted of a violation of subdivision
(e), the court shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, which
shall immediately terminate the restriction and shall suspend or
revoke the person’s driving privilege for the remaining period of
the originating suspension or revocation and until all reinstatement
requirements in Section 13352 are met.
(2) If any a person who is restricted pursuant to subdivision (a)
or (l) of Section 23575 is convicted of a violation of subdivision
(e), the department shall suspend the person’s driving privilege
for one year from the date of the conviction.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a vehicle in
which an ignition interlock device has been installed is impounded,
the manufacturer or installer of the device shall have the right to
remove the device from the vehicle during normal business hours.
No A charge shall not be imposed for the removal of the device
nor shall, and the manufacturer or installer shall not be liable for
any removal, towing, impoundment, storage, release, or
administrative costs or penalties associated with the impoundment.
Upon request, the person seeking to remove the device shall present
documentation to justify removal of the device from the vehicle.
Any damage to the vehicle resulting from the removal of the device
is the responsibility of the person removing it.
SEC. 20. Section 23502 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23502. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a
person who is at least 18 years of age is convicted of a first
violation of Section 23140, in addition to any penalties, the court
shall order the person to attend a program licensed under Section
98
SB 177 — 38 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, subject to a fee schedule
developed under paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section
11837.4 of the Health and Safety Code.
(b) The attendance in a licensed driving-under-the-influence
program required under subdivision (a) shall be as follows:
(1) If, within 10 years of the current violation of Section 23140,
the person has not been convicted of a separate violation of Section
23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 23103, with a plea of guilty
under Section 23103.5, or of Section 655 of the Harbors and
Navigation Code, or of Section 191.5 of, or paragraph (3) of
subdivision (c) (a) of Section 192 192.5 of, the Penal Code, the
person shall complete, at a minimum, the education component of
that licensed driving-under-the-influence program.
(2) If the person does not meet the requirements of paragraph
(1), the person shall complete, at a minimum, the program
described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 11837 of
the Health and Safety Code.
(c) The person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
suspended by the department as required under Section 13352.6
13352.9, and the court shall require the person to surrender his or
her driver’s license to the court in accordance with Section 13550.
(d) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing
that the driving privilege will not be restored until the person has
provided the department with proof satisfactory to the department
that the person has successfully completed the
driving-under-the-influence program required under this section.
SEC. 21. Section 23536 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23536. (a) If a person is convicted of a first violation of Section
23152, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county
jail for not less than 96 hours, at least 48 hours of which shall be
continuous, nor more than six months, and by a fine of not less
than three hundred ninety dollars ($390), nor more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000).
(b) The court shall order that a person punished under
subdivision (a), who is to be punished by imprisonment in the
county jail, be imprisoned on days other than days of regular
employment of the person, as determined by the court. If the court
determines that 48 hours of continuous imprisonment would
interfere with the person’s work schedule, the court shall allow
98
— 39 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
the person to serve the imprisonment whenever the person is
normally scheduled for time off from work. The court may make
this determination based upon a representation from the defendant’s
attorney or upon an affidavit or testimony from the defendant.
(c) The person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision
(a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require
the person to surrender the driver’s license to the court in
accordance with Section 13550.
(d) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a
whole, the court determines that the person punished under this
section would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if
authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of
suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, the court may disallow the
issuance of a restricted driver’s license required under Section
13352.4.
SEC. 22. Section 23538 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23538. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to person punished
under Section 23536, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600
and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court
shall impose as a condition of probation that the person pay a fine
of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390), but not more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000). The court may also impose, as a
condition of probation, that the person be confined in a county jail
for at least 48 hours, but not more than six months.
(2) The person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision
(a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require
the person to surrender the driver’s license to the court in
accordance with Section 13550.
(3) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a
whole, the court determines that the person punished under this
section would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if
authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of
suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, the court may disallow the
issuance of a restricted driver’s license required under Section
13352.4.
98
SB 177 — 40 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(b) In any a county where the board of supervisors has approved,
and the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has
licensed, a program or programs described in Section 11837.3 of
the Health and Safety Code, the court shall also impose as a
condition of probation that the driver shall enroll and participate
in, and successfully complete a driving-under-the-influence
program, licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and
Safety Code, in the driver’s county of residence or employment,
as designated by the court. For the purposes of this subdivision,
enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved
program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation.
Credit may shall not be given for any program activities completed
prior to the date of the current violation.
(1) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol
concentration was less than 0.20 percent, by weight, to participate
for at least three months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a
licensed program that consists of at least 30 hours of program
activities, including those education, group counseling, and
individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing
with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(2) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol
concentration was 0.20 percent or more, by weight, or who refused
to take a chemical test, to participate for at least nine months or
longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists
of at least 60 hours of program activities, including those education,
group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in
Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division
10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing
that the driving privilege shall not be restored until proof
satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a
driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under
this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health
and Safety Code has been received in the department’s
headquarters.
(c) (1) The court shall revoke the person’s probation pursuant
to Section 23602, except for good cause shown, for the failure to
enroll in, participate in, or complete a program specified in
subdivision (b).
98
— 41 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(2) The court, in establishing reporting requirements, shall
consult with the county alcohol program administrator. The county
alcohol program administrator shall coordinate the reporting
requirements with the department and with the State Department
of Alcohol and Drug Programs. That reporting shall ensure that
all persons who, after being ordered to attend and complete a
program, may be identified for either (A) failure to enroll in, or
failure to successfully complete, the program, or (B) successful
completion of the program as ordered.
SEC. 23. Section 23546 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23546. (a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section
23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of two separate
violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, 23152,
or 23153, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions,
that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail
for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine of
not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000). The person’s privilege to operate
a motor vehicle shall be revoked suspended by the Department of
Motor Vehicles as required in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender his
or her driver’s license to the court in accordance with Section
13550.
(b) A person convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under this section shall be designated as a habitual
traffic offender for a period of three years, subsequent to the
conviction. The person shall be advised of this designation pursuant
to subdivision (b) of Section 13350.
SEC. 24. Section 23548 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23548. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to any a person
punished under Section 23546, in addition to the provisions of
Section 23600 and any other terms and conditions imposed by the
court, the court shall impose as conditions of probation that the
person be confined in the county jail for at least 120 days but not
more than one year and pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety
dollars ($390) but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(2) The person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
revoked suspended by the department under paragraph (5) of
98
SB 177 — 42 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person
to surrender the driver’s license to the court in accordance with
Section 13550.
(b) In addition to subdivision (a), if the court grants probation
to any a person punished under Section 23546, the court may order
as a condition of probation that the person participate, for at least
30 months subsequent to the underlying conviction and in a manner
satisfactory to the court, in a driving-under-the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
In lieu of the minimum term of imprisonment specified in
subdivision (a), the court shall impose as a condition of probation
under this subdivision that the person be confined in the county
jail for at least 30 days but not more than one year. The court shall
not order the treatment prescribed by this subdivision unless the
person makes a specific request and shows good cause for the
order, whether or not the person has previously completed a
treatment program pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of
Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 23562.
In order to enable all required persons to participate, each person
shall pay the program costs commensurate with the person’s ability
to pay as determined pursuant to Section 11837.4 of the Health
and Safety Code. No condition of probation required pursuant to
this subdivision is a basis for reducing any other probation
requirement in this section or Section 23600 or for avoiding the
mandatory license revocation provisions of suspension imposed
under paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352.
(c) In addition to the provisions of Section 23600 and
subdivision (a), if the court grants probation to any a person
punished under Section 23546 who has not previously completed
a treatment program pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b)
of Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section
23562, and unless the person is ordered to participate in and
complete a driving-under-the-influence program under subdivision
(b), the court shall impose as a condition of probation that the
person, subsequent to the date of the current violation, enroll and
participate, for at least 18 months and in a manner satisfactory to
the court, in a driving-under-the-influence program licensed
pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as
designated by the court. The person shall complete the entire
program subsequent to, and shall not be given any credit for
98
— 43 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
program activities completed prior to, the date of the current
violation.Any A person who has previously completed a 12-month
or 18-month program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the
Health and Safety Code shall not be eligible for referral pursuant
to this subdivision unless a 30-month licensed
driving-under-the-influence program is not available for referral
in the county of the person’s residence or employment. The
program shall provide for persons who cannot afford the program
fee pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 11837.4
of the Health and Safety Code in order to enable those persons to
participate. No condition of probation required pursuant to this
subdivision is a basis for reducing any other probation requirement
in this section or Section 23600 or for avoiding the mandatory
license revocation provisions of suspension imposed under
paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352.
(d) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing
that the driving privilege may shall not be restored until the person
provides proof satisfactory to the department of successful
completion of a driving-under-the-influence program of the length
required under this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836
of the Health and Safety Code.
(e) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.
SEC. 25. Section 23550.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23550.5. (a) A person is guilty of a public offense, punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison or confinement in a county
jail for not more than one year and by a fine of not less than three
hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars
($1,000) if that person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152
or 23153, and the offense occurred within 10 years of any of the
following:
(1) A prior violation of Section 23152 that was punished as a
felony under Section 23550 or this section, or both, or under former
Section 23175 or former Section 23175.5, or both.
(2) A prior violation of Section 23153 that was punished as a
felony.
(3) A prior violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of
Section 192 of the Penal Code that was punished as a felony.
(b) Every A person who, having previously been convicted of
a violation of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code or a felony violation
98
SB 177 — 44 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) (a) of Section 192 192.5 of the
Penal Code, is subsequently convicted of a violation of Section
23152 or 23153 is guilty of a public offense punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison or confinement in a county jail
for not more than one year and by a fine of not less than three
hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars
($1,000).
(c) The privilege to operate a motor vehicle of a person
convicted of a violation that is punishable under subdivision (a)
or (b) shall be revoked by the department under paragraph (7) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, unless paragraph (6) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 is also applicable, in which case
the privilege shall be revoked suspended under that provision. The
court shall require the person to surrender the driver’s license to
the court in accordance with Section 13550.
(d) Any A person convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or
23153 that is punishable under this section shall be designated as
a habitual traffic offender for a period of three years, subsequent
to the conviction. The person shall be advised of this designation
under subdivision (b) of Section 13350.
SEC. 26. Section 23575 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23575. (a) (1) In addition to any other provisions of law, the
court may require that a person convicted of a first offense violation
of Section 23152 or 23153 to install a certified ignition interlock
device on any vehicle that the person owns or operates and prohibit
that person from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is
equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device.
The court shall give heightened consideration to applying this
sanction to a first offense violator with 0.20 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at arrest, or with two or more
prior moving traffic violations, or to persons who refused the
chemical tests at arrest. If the court orders the ignition interlock
device restriction, the term shall be determined by the court for a
period not to exceed three years from the date of conviction. The
court shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified
in subdivision (a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions
in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The
Department of Motor Vehicles shall place the restriction in the
person’s records in the Department of Motor Vehicles.
98
— 45 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(2) The court shall require a person convicted of a violation of
Section 14601.2 to install an ignition interlock device on any
vehicle that the person owns or operates and prohibit the person
from operating a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped with
a functioning, certified ignition interlock device. The term of the
restriction shall be determined by the court for a period not to
exceed three years from the date of conviction. The court shall
notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in
subdivision (a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in
accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department
of Motor Vehicles shall place the restriction in the person’s records
in the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(b) The court shall include on the abstract of conviction or
violation submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles under
Section 1803 or 1816, the requirement and term for the use of a
certified ignition interlock device. The records of the department
shall reflect mandatory use of the device for the term ordered by
the court.
(c) The court shall advise the person that installation of an
ignition interlock device on a vehicle does not allow the person to
drive without a valid driver’s license.
(d) A person whose driving privilege is restricted by the court
pursuant to this section shall arrange for each vehicle with an
ignition interlock device to be serviced by the installer at least
once every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and
monitor the operation of the device. The installer shall notify the
court if the device is removed or indicates that the person has
attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the
person fails three or more times to comply with any a requirement
for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device.
There is no obligation for the installer to notify the court if the
person has complied with all of the requirements of this article.
(e) The court shall monitor the installation and maintenance of
any ignition interlock device restriction ordered pursuant to
subdivision (a) or (l). If a person fails to comply with the court
order, the court shall give notice of the fact to the department
pursuant to Section 40509.1.
(f) (1) Pursuant to Section 13352, if If a person is convicted of
a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and the offense occurred
within 10 years of one or more separate violations of Section 23152
98
SB 177 — 46 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
or 23153 that resulted in a conviction, the person may apply applies
to the Department of Motor Vehicles for a restricted driver’s license
pursuant to Section 13352 13352.4, 13352.5, 13352.6, 13352.7,
13352.8, 13352.81, or 13352.82, that prohibits the person from
operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a
functioning ignition interlock device, certified pursuant to Section
13386. The, the restriction shall remain in effect for at least the
remaining period of the original suspension or revocation and until
all reinstatement requirements in Section 13352 are met.
(2) Pursuant to subdivision (g), the Department of Motor
Vehicles shall immediately terminate the restriction issued pursuant
to Section 13352 13352.4, 13352.5, 13352.6, 13352.7, 13352.8,
13352.81, or 13352.82, and shall immediately suspend or revoke
the privilege to operate a motor vehicle of a person who attempts
to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, who has the device
removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or who
fails three or more times to comply with any a requirement for the
maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device ordered
pursuant to Section 13352 13352.4, 13352.5, 13352.6, 13352.7,
13352.8, 13352.81, or 13352.82. The privilege shall remain
suspended or revoked for the remaining period of the originating
suspension or revocation and until all reinstatement requirements
in Section 13352 are met.
(g) A person whose driving privilege is restricted by the
Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Section 13352 13352.4,
13352.5, 13352.6, 13352.7, 13352.8, 13352.81, or 13352.82, shall
arrange for each vehicle with an ignition interlock device to be
serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days in order for
the installer to recalibrate the device and monitor the operation of
the device. The installer shall notify the Department of Motor
Vehicles if the device is removed or indicates that the person has
attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the
person fails three or more times to comply with any a requirement
for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device.
There is no obligation on the part of the installer to notify the
department or the court if the person has complied with all of the
requirements of this section.
(h) Nothing in this section permits a person to drive without a
valid driver’s license.
98
— 47 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(i) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall include information
along with the order of suspension or revocation for repeat
offenders informing them that after a specified period of suspension
or revocation has been completed, the person may either install an
ignition interlock device on any vehicle that the person owns or
operates or remain with a suspended or revoked driver’s license.
(j) Pursuant to this section, an out-of-state resident who
otherwise would qualify for an ignition interlock device restricted
license in California shall be prohibited from operating a motor
vehicle in California unless that vehicle is equipped with a
functioning ignition interlock device. An ignition interlock device
is not required to be installed on any vehicle owned by the
defendant that is not driven in California.
(k) If a person has a medical problem that does not permit the
person to breathe with sufficient strength to activate the device,
then that person shall only have the suspension option.
(l) This section does not restrict a court from requiring
installation of an ignition interlock device and prohibiting operation
of a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a
functioning, certified ignition interlock device for a person to
whom subdivision (a) or (b) does not apply. The term of the
restriction shall be determined by the court for a period not to
exceed three years from the date of conviction. The court shall
notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in
subdivision (a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in
accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department
of Motor Vehicles shall place the restriction in the person’s records
in the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(m) For the purposes of this section, “vehicle” does not include
a motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device
that can be installed on a motorcycle. Any A person subject to an
ignition interlock device restriction shall not operate a motorcycle
for the duration of the ignition interlock device restriction period.
(n) For the purposes of this section, “owned” means solely
owned or owned in conjunction with another person or legal entity.
For purposes of this section, “operates” includes operating vehicles
a vehicle that are is not owned by the person subject to this section.
(o) For the purposes of this section, “bypass” includes, but is
not limited to, either of the following:
98
SB 177 — 48 —
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(1) Any combination of failing or not taking the ignition
interlock device rolling retest three consecutive times.
(2) Any incidence of failing or not taking the ignition interlock
device rolling retest, when not followed by an incidence of passing
the ignition interlock rolling retest prior to turning off the vehicle’s
engine.
SEC. 27. Section 23575.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:
23575.5. (a) The Ignition Interlock Device Assistance Fund
is hereby created in the State Treasury. The money in the fund is
available to the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature,
to fund the installation of ignition interlock devices.
(b) In addition to any other fines or fees imposed, a person
convicted of violating Section 23152 or 23153 shall pay a fee of
one hundred dollars ($100) to be deposited in the Ignition Interlock
Device Assistance Fund.
(c) The director shall establish standards and develop criteria
for implementing and maintaining the Ignition Interlock Device
Assistance Program. The criteria shall include at least all of the
following:
(1) Requirements for financial assistance to install and maintain
an ignition interlock device.
(2) The maximum amount of financial assistance, not to exceed
50 percent of the cost of installing and maintaining an ignition
interlock device, available for a person to install and maintain an
ignition interlock device.
(3) The application process by which a person can apply for
financial assistance.
(4) Criteria to terminate financial assistance.
SEC. 28. Section 23576 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
23576. (a) Notwithstanding Section Sections 13352.85 and
23575, if a person is required to operate a motor vehicle in the
course and scope of his or her employment and if the vehicle is
owned by the employer, the person may operate that vehicle
without installation of an approved ignition interlock device if the
employer has been notified by the person that the person’s driving
privilege has been restricted pursuant to Section 13352.4, 13352.5,
13352.6, 13352.7, 13352.8, 13352.81, 13352.82, 13353.7,
13353.71, 13353.72, or 23575 and if the person has proof of that
98
— 49 — SB 177
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
notification in his or her possession, or if the notice, or a facsimile
copy thereof, is with the vehicle.
(b) A motor vehicle owned by a business entity that is all or
partly owned or controlled by a person otherwise subject to Section
13352.4, 13352.5, 13352.6, 13352.7, 13352.8, 13352.81, 13352.82,
13353.7, 13353.71, 13353.72, or 23575, is not a motor vehicle
owned by the employer subject to the exemption in subdivision
(a).
SEC. 29. 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 XIII B of the California
Constitution.
All matter omitted in this version of the bill
appears in the bill as introduced in the
Senate, February 5, 2007. (JR11)
O
98
SB 177 — 50 —

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

An Inverness man delayed entering a plea to a California DUI this morning in Marin County Superior Court to charges in connection with a fatal vehicle crash that killed a 16-year-old boy.

Larios is charged with second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter and California DUI in connection with the crash that killed Richard Teague, of Point Reyes, a passenger in his 1988 Chevrolet pickup. The accident happened June 12 on state Highway 1 between Olema and Point Reyes Station, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The truck allegedly went off the road and struck a power pole and neither Larios or Teague was wearing a seatbelt, according to the CHP. Teague was pronounced dead at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital.

The Marin County District Attorney's Office said Larios has two prior DUI convictions in Marin County, California.

His California DUI attorney is presently not named.

Brighton, Colorado DUI police will be conducting a DUI or drunk driving sobriety checkpoint from 8 p.m. June 22 to 3 a.m. Saturday, June 23.

It's part of the Colorado Department of Transportation's DUI Checkpoint Colorado program to put motorists on notice against drinking and driving, drunk driving, DUI and DWI.

50 DUI checkpoints are planned in Colorado this summer. Last summer's effort turned up 411 DUI arrests and an 8 percent eduction in alcohol-related fatalities from 2005.

Chicago Bears defensive lineman Terry "Tank" Johnson was pulled over for speeding by Gilbert police early this morning, and had blood drawn at the police station on suspicion of driving impaired or drunk driving.

Gilbert Police spokesman Sgt. Andrew Duncan released a statement this afternoon with details of the McClintock High graduate's arrest.

"Gilbert Police stopped Johnson for driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone on Gilbert Road at about 3:30 a.m. on Friday morning. Observations were made at the scene leading the officer to believe that Johnson was impaired,"

The statement added "Johnson was arrested for DUI impaired to the slightest degree," and was transported to police headquarters to have blood drawn.

"Johnson was cooperative with the process and was released pending lab analysis of the blood sample," police said.

Police did not book or charge Johnson and "DUI charges are pending lab analysis results."

In the statement, Gilbert police declined to comment or conduct interviews "to avoid the perception of "grandstanding" and to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial."

Already preparing to sit out eight games in the upcoming NFL season, Johnson's season becomes even cloudier after reports said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Johnson's suspension could be reduced to six if he had no further incidents with law enforcement.

Johnson was released from jail on May 13, after serving 60 days of a 120-day sentence after pleading guilty to violating probation on a 2005 weapons charge.

Da Bears.

MOORE PLEADS NO-CONTEST TO SPEEDING, DUI CHARGES DROPPED

June 22, 2007

American actor SHEMAR MOORE has been fined $1,400 and ordered to do community service after entering a no-contest plea to speeding. Just hours after being charged with two counts of California DUI, the 37-year-old's lawyer made the plea and the DUI charges were dropped. Moore, who has also been placed on probation, was arrested on 1 June (07) after being pulled over by Los Angeles California police near Santa Monica Boulevard at 1.30am.

TACOMA, Washington. - A Pierce County woman apparently tied a record for the amount of alcohol in her blood when the Washington State Patrol toxicology lab measured a blood-alcohol content of 0.50 two hours after she was arrested for investigation of drunken driving.

Ann Marie Gordon, manager of the lab in Seattle, said the reading — more than six times the legal limit of 0.08 — tied the highest level ever found by technicians at the patrol's lab. A King County driver also registered 0.50 on a blood test in 2000, Gordon said.

"It certainly would kill many people," she said.

The average blood-alcohol content of drunken drivers stopped in Washington is about 0.15, Gordon added.

Rebecca G. Lingbloom, 45, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol on May 10. Authorities contended in an affidavit that she nearly hit a pedestrian that day and was seen swerving all over the road.

A Pierce County sheriff's deputy later found her passed out behind the wheel of her car in the Summit area, the affidavit states.

Deputy Prosecutor Bradley Moericke pointed out that Lingbloom was arrested for investigation of drunk driving twice in the 1990s, and asked District Court Judge Frank Dacca to jail her in lieu of $20,000 bail. Moericke also asked that Lingbloom be monitored with an electronic bracelet that would record her movements should she make bail.

DUI arrests have skyrocketed during the month of June.

Not only are more drivers getting behind the wheel while intoxicated, but they're also consuming more alcohol before driving, sheriff's officials said. The average blood alcohol content (BAC) of those arrested was .20 - or more than twice the legal limit.

With 35 arrests in Incline Village and Crystal Bay, Nevada, during June through Thursday, sheriff's officials this week said this month could "easily eclipse" the all-time high of September 2006, when 37 drivers were arrested. The sheriff's office has kept track of DUI numbers in the area since 2004.

As a knee-jerk to last September's high number of arrests, Incline residents and decided to form a community nonprofit Citizens Advocating Responsible Driving (CARD) to educate the public and provide a shuttle service.

Information from the sheriff's office last fall that most DUI arrests were of local residents is congruous with this month's arrest tally thus far.

Out of the 34 arrests in June thus far, 15 are Incline locals, nine others are from the North Shore and two from South Shore. The balance are from the Carson/Minden or Reno/Sparks area or out-of-state.

Kelly and Sgt. Bill Devine have worked since last fall to get the word out to local bar patrons as well as the establishments themselves. Yet without some kind of safe ride program, some bartenders feel the problem will continue.
Sheriff's officials agreed.

Capt. Kelly admitted finding people rides during the high season is one of the greatest concerns that he hopes will be addressed soon by CARD.

Charity Founder Charged With DUI


Michael Scott Kerr, the founder of the Snowball Express charity has recently been charged with a California DUI in the Orange County California Superior Court.

The Snowball Express charity has helped hundreds of families of servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is Kerr's second DUI arrest, which may violate probation from a 2005 DUI and may give the charity founder some jail time.

SAN DIEGO California DUI News

San Diego Chargers linebacker Steve Foley's companion - when he was shot by an off-duty police officer in Poway - was sentenced for her San Diego California DUI conviction. She was ordered to serve 180 days in jail.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Charles Rogers said the evidence in the case showed that Gaut started the evening of Sept. 2 wanting to hang out with celebrities, but ended up in a situation that devolved into chaos.

“We are dealing with a confused, intoxicated and in some ways naive young woman,” Rogers said, explaining his decision. “That's not a case for prison, that's a case for probation.” On April 26, a jury convicted Gaut, 26, of assault with a deadly weapon – a car – and misdemeanor San Diego DUI. She was acquitted of assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer.

Off-duty Coronado police Officer Aaron Mansker testified that he was driving home from work shortly after 3 a.m. – in his personal car and street clothes – when he saw Foley's 1971 Oldsmobile Cutlass driving erratically along state Route 163. He radioed for assistance and was told that a California Highway Patrol officer was responding.

Mansker followed the Oldsmobile for 24 minutes, talking the Pomerado Road exit from Interstate 15 and heading toward Poway.

Mansker said he contacted Foley and Gaut several times, but they ignored his commands. When Foley stopped his car near his home at the bottom of Travertine Court, the officer said he decided to give up and drive off, but he realized he had driven into a cul-de-sac.

Mansker said he saw Foley walking up the hill with Gaut behind the wheel of the Oldsmobile following closely behind.

Mansker testified that he got out of his car and fired a warning shot into a dirt berm as Gaut drove the car straight at him. He said Foley continued to approach him and reached into his waistband as though he had a weapon, so he fired again.

Foley was wounded in the knee, hip and hand. Police said he was unarmed.

Foley has since pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor San Diego California DUI charge.

The judge said Foley had acted in a “random and chaotic way” and continued to advance toward Mansker even after the officer fired a warning shot.

He also said he considered Foley's “unpredictable and chaotic conduct” in sentencing Gaut.

Gaut had testified that she got behind the wheel to help Foley after he was shot but had trouble driving his heavily customized car.

Gaut said she regretted ever getting behind the wheel of Foley's car.

A man serving 10 years in prison for causing the death of a Somerset beauty pageant winner in a DUI car accident in 2005 was denied parole by parole board in Frankfort Friday.

Ryan West, 22, of Somerset, was originally charged with murder, DUI and two counts of assault resulting from the June 2005 single-car accident that killed passenger Brittany Shoap, 20. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of second-degree manslaughter.

West was questioned extensively by the parole board, which took less than five minutes to make its decision. West was asked for details about how much alcohol he consumed before that crash, and talked for the first time about another fatal crash he was involved in when he was a juvenile. West admitted during that McCreary County wreck he had been drinking.

Shoap had won the Miss Taylor County Fair beauty pageant just two days prior to the accident to qualify for the Miss Kentucky County Fair pageant.

Police say West, who hit a utility pole at a high rate of speed, causing the car to roll into an embankment, had a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit when tested more than two hours after the accident.

Shoap was a student at Somerset Community College, where she majored in early childhood education. In her biography for the Miss Taylor County pageant, Shoap said she hoped to earn her degree, work with disabled children and start a family of her own.

Two other passengers were thrown from the vehicle in the crash and were hospitalized. Shoap rode in the back seat and wore a seat belt, he said. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Authorities later determined she died of blunt force trauma.

West is set to be released from prison in 2012.

A 52-year-old was sentenced to man to 70 years in prison after finding him guilty of felony driving while intoxicated.

The jury also found that the vehicle driven by Wendel Glenn Klotz was used as a deadly weapon, making Klotz ineligible for parole for 30 years.

During trial, Klotz tried to convince the jury that he got intoxicated back at home after his accident in the truck. During a punishment hearing, the jury learned Klotz had seven prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. The convictions were in 1983 (2 cases), 1987 (2 cases), 1988, 1991 and 1996.

He failed to complete probation every time he received it and went to prison four times. He had received numerous opportunities for treatment and was kicked out of the Central Texas Treatment Center, a local inpatient treatment facility for chronic drunks and drug abusers.

"There is no excuse for getting into a truck and driving drunk," said District Attorney John Bradley.

WASHINGTON, DC

June 21, 2007:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) announced significant state legislative victories in Arizona and Illinois that mandate alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, moving one step closer to its goal of a drunk-driving free America. The legislative progress is part of a bold new offensive in the war against drunk driving -- MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, launched in November 2006.

Legislative victories on alcohol ignition interlocks in Arizona and Illinois applauded as new national data show drunk driving fatalities on the rise.

"Our vision of eliminating drunk driving is one step closer to becoming a reality," said MADD National President Glynn Birch. "As part of MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, we will continue to work nationwide until every state does what Arizona and Illinois have done."

MADD is also calling for congressional hearings to develop a comprehensive strategy built upon solutions proven to work. MADD's National Board of Directors met recently with members of Congress to champion the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving and lobby for increased focus on the issue of drunk driving.

The Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving has four elements: full implementation of alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, intensive high-visibility law enforcement, development of advanced vehicle technologies to prevent drunk driving and grassroots support led by MADD and its 400+ affiliates.

The need for the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving has been underscored by a recent federal report showing that drunk driving deaths are at their highest point since 1992, according to preliminary figures.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, fatalities involving a driver with a .08 blood alcohol content or higher rose from 13,613 in 2005 to 13,990 in 2006, representing almost a 3 percent increase. At the same time, overall traffic fatalities were down slightly by 0.3 percent.

"It's clear that more of the same will not help in the fight to make our roads safer," Birch said. "We still have states without the most effective tools in place to deter and stop drunk driving -- sobriety checkpoints and ignition interlocks. These tools stop higher-risk offenders and first-time drunk drivers. There is no justification for not using the tools we know will save lives and prevent injuries."

MADD's aggressive legislative strategy aims to strengthen drunk driving laws in all 50 states. Last month, the Arizona legislature and Governor took a bold step for public safety by mandating alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers. The Illinois legislature also passed interlock legislation last month, which awaits Governor Blagojevich's signature before becoming law. Louisiana, New York, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are actively considering interlock laws.

An alcohol ignition interlock is a breath test device linked to a vehicle's ignition system. When a driver wishes to start his or her vehicle, he or she must first blow into the device. The vehicle will not start unless the driver's alcohol level is below a pre-set blood alcohol content (BAC).

"Alcohol ignition interlocks, when installed and monitored, save thousands of lives and help save society money in part by giving offenders the ability to drive without endangering the public," said MADD CEO Chuck Hurley.

Multiple studies have shown alcohol ignition interlocks are up to 90 percent effective in keeping both first-time and repeat offenders from recommitting the crime as long as the interlock is installed on the vehicle. Furthermore, 65 percent of the public supports the mandatory installation of alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers.

Early results from New Mexico, the first state to mandate ignition interlocks as part of sentencing for all convicted drunk drivers, make the case for a national alcohol ignition interlock policy if reducing the number of drunk drivers on roadways is a priority.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation reported that alcohol-related injury crashes dropped by 20 percent and overall alcohol-related crashes declined by more than 17 percent in the first year the state adopted mandatory interlock legislation.

Despite a 40 percent decline in alcohol-related traffic fatalities since MADD was founded in 1980, the threat of one of the nation's most deadly crimes still remains. Last year, nearly 14,000 people were killed by drunk drivers with an illegal BAC of .08 or above and countless others were injured. This represents more than 1,000 families every month that must live with the tragic consequences of drunk driving.

About MADD

Founded in 1980, MADD's mission is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking. MADD is a 501c(3) non-profit, grassroots organization with approximately 400 affiliates and 2 million members and supporters nationwide.

Twenty-nine-year old Anthony Klecker faced more than four years in prison after pleading guilty to Criminal Vehicular Homicide for killing a teenager.

On Thursday, Judge David Knutson gave him a downward departure, sentencing him to 365 days in jail and 1,000 hours of community service. His probation will last for 10 years.

Casey's 16-year-old daughter Deanna was killed on Interstate 494 on October 28, 2006. Authorities say Klecker was drunk when he crashed into the median that Casey hit head-on on her way home from work.

Defense attorneys have been asking for the downward departure, citing Klecker's post traumatic stress disorder diagnosis. Klecker served the armed forces overseas, fighting in Iraq.

Knutson's sentence requires Klecker to go through 45 days of in-patient alcohol treatment, 45 days of treatment at the VA Hospital for post traumatic stress, and a 45 day independent living skills program.

After Klecker serves the final 188 days of his jail sentence, he'll be speaking to groups about alcohol abuse and post traumatic stress disorder.

The traffic control branch of Mumbai Police registered 214 cases of drunk driving in just 3 hours on Thursday. From 11 pm to 3 am, 38 cases of rash and negligent driving and 52 cases of speeding were also recorded.

Although the motorists booked for drunk driving were let off after they paid a fine of Rs 2,000, their licenses were impounded, which means they can’t drive without getting it back.

“Such checkings are usually conducted during weekends. But we were surprised when more than 200 motorists were caught within three hours,” said Joint Commissioner of Traffic Vijay Kamble.

Police officers from all traffic chowkies were instructed to detect drunk drivers with breath analysers. The senior inspectors of all the traffic divisions in Mumbai assisted by sub inspectors and other staff members were deployed at various junctions like Worli Naka, Mahim junction, Maheshwari Circle, BARC flyover, S V Road, Linking Road and near Palm Grove Hotel, Juhu.

Driving under the influence of alcohol is considered a serious offence in India. In the event of an accident under the influence of alcohol, the punishment for the offender can be a fine and/or imprisonment up to six months.

“A person is booked for drunk driving when alcohol content in his blood is more than 0.05 per cent. His driving licence is suspended for at least six months,” said a senior police official.

The Traffic police have intensified checking at various points in the city after a number of cases of accidents due to drunk driving were registered in the recent past.

The Mumbai Traffic Police have made an appeal to motorists to exercise more control on their drinking and avoid driving after consuming alcohol.

People should make use of public transport like autos and taxis if they have consumed alcohol, the police said.

June 22, 2007

A Schaumburg, Illinois man admitted Thursday in court that he was drunk nearly two years ago when his pickup truck ran a red light and collided with a van that burst into flames, trapping and killing two children inside.

Ralph Pollock, 48, pleaded guilty to 10 counts of aggravated DUI related to the deaths of Nathan Hockerman, 5, and his sister, Claire, 14, and injuries to their parents, Gregory and Sherry, and brother, Paul, who survived the crash.

This was the third time Pollock was charged with DUI, said Assistant State's Atty. Maureen O'Brien. The first time, he received supervision, and the second time, he was convicted. He now faces a minimum sentence of six years in prison and a maximum of 28, she said.

Cook County Judge Lawrence Terrell will sentence Pollock on Aug. 28 at the Maybrook courthouse in Maywood.

A DUI hearing for New York Yankees executive Steve Swindal has been postponed in Clearwater.

Swindal was arrested by St. Petersburg police on February 15th and charged with driving under the influence, a misdemeanor.

Police said he was weaving and speeding when he was pulled over. Swindal, who had been designated as George Steinbrenner's successor as head of the Yankees, has pleaded not guilty.

State narc cleared of DWI
Source: KRQE News 13











ALBUQUERQUE

A former undercover New Mexico State Police officer has been cleared of drunk driving.

An Albuquerque judge ruled Wednesday that there was not enough evidence to prove John Lytle was actually driving the night he was arrested.

Lytle was arrested in January while urinating outside of an unmarked police vehicle near downtown Albuquerque.

His attorney denied his client was DUI and accused Albuquerque police of compromising an undercover drug investigation.

Lytle was placed on leave after his arrest and later fired.

San Diego California DUI News:

Drug Test Kit Ideal for Testing Soap but Not Drugs

New Video Proves NarcoPouch® 928 Tests Positive on Various Natural Soaps and Negative on "Fake" Soap Based on Detergent Formulations

ESCONDIDO, CAlifornia

The Bronner family, makers of the popular organic Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps have released a new video of NarcoPouch® 928 field drug tests of its soaps and other brands. The results prove that the test kit which was used to jail Don Bolles, drummer for the legendary punk band The Germs on April 4, will always give a false-positive for the drug GHB (Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate) if used on any true natural soap. However, in an interesting twist, the test will test negative for fake mislabeled "liquid soap" products that are actually detergent-based, not soap. The new video features David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, using the NarcoPouch® 928 on a wide variety of common natural soaps as well as detergent based fake "soap" products. The video can be viewed at http://www.drbronner.com/soap_test.html.

"Our testing shows that real soaps which are made using the ecological time-honored process of saponification of vegetable oil will always test positive for GHB, while complicated synthetic detergent-based so-called 'liquid soaps' test negative," said David Bronner. "The NarcoPouch® 928 is a great test for determining if a product labeled 'Soap' actually contains real soap or not. It's ironic that the flawed GHB field test used by cops shows in a graphic immediate way true versus fake soaps. Fortunately for Don Bolles, the much more accurate confirmation drug-testing by the Orange County crime lab proved our soap did not contain the drug GHB."
Detergents in fake soap products are usually made in part or even entirely from petroleum along with vegetable feedstocks. For instance, Sodium Myreth Sulfate, the main ingredient in JASON's so-called "Pure, Natural, & Organic Soap" is made by attaching ethylene oxide groups from petroleum to vegetable fatty acid, which also produces trace 1,4 dioxane as a side reaction. Olefin Sulfonate, the main ingredient in both Nature's Gate ORGANICS "Soap" and Kiss My Face ObsessivelyOrganic "Soap", is made entirely from petroleum. Cocamidopropyl Sultaine, the main ingredient in EO's so-called soap, is in significant part petroleum-based.

Bronner laments: "Companies mislead consumers in conflating their detergent-based products with ecological biodegradable soaps, even calling these synthetic detergent products 'organic'. Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps are real soaps made from real organic oils, while these other so-called 'Soap' products are detergents made from petroleum and conventional vegetable material. They are not soap, they are not organic, they are not natural."

The crime lab confirmation test that exonerated Don Bolles and Dr. Bronner's soaps of GHB, uses the GC-MS method which is much more accurate than the field drug test kits used by the Newport Beach Police. "Police departments nationwide should immediately stop using the ODV, Inc. field test for GHB as it is not accurate when used on soaps and who knows what other common household products," said Bronner. ODV, Inc, maker of NarcoPouch® 928 Inc is a subsidiary of Armor Holdings, Inc. The company has done nothing to alert police departments about the false positives when used on natural soap.

According to retired FBI agent and forensics expert Dr. Frederick Whitehurst, "There is no effort by the National Academies of Science to validate forensic science protocols and there are no national standards for presumptive field drug tests. I believe our freedoms are being infringed upon because of fake science."



Gamma-hydroxybutyra te (GHB) is an endogenous metabolite, present in most mammalian tissues at low (nanomolar) concentrations.

Ref.

D.T. Anderson and T. Kuwahara. Endogenous gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB) levels in postmortem specimens. Presented at the quarterly meeting of the California Association of Toxicologists, Las Vegas, November 6, 1997.

Pages 498-501, Gamma-hydroxybutyra te in Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man, Seveth Edition (2004) by Randall C. Baselt, Ph.D., Biomedial Publications, Foster City, California.



A general comment on GHB. It is gamma hydroxy butyric acid. That is, it is a normal product of fat metabolism. Think "butyric" as in butter. It is in beef, wine (not a "fatty" food, but the grapes and bugs result in the formation of GHB), beer, blood, urine, and just about anything else of biological origin. It can and does form very rapidly in biological samples.

A police department arranged for a test on some suspect wine. It contained GHB. So, a bottle of the same fine wine was purchased, and it was positive, too. The concentrations were essentially the same.

It also is a problem in that the analysis itself is fraught with problems due to the nature of the substance. A simple substance is often more difficult to analyze than is a larger, more complex, substance, such as cocaine or heroin.

TAMPA Florida

Prosecutors dropped 65 of former sheriff's Deputy Daniel Brock's DUI arrests between October 2005 and October 2006. One was the case of William G. Lapanne.

Brock arrested Lapanne after a two-car crash on June 24, 2006, and then, a prosecutor said, forced him to give a blood sample without having a legal reason to do so.

The Hillsborough Sheriff's Office fired Brock on May 24 after an internal review found that he arrested 58 people with blood-alcohol content below the legal threshold, often without evidence of suspicious driving behavior, positive urine samples or video to back his claims.

Results from Lapanne's blood test indicated that he had used a prescription drug and marijuana but didn't show how recently, according to the State Attorney's Office. A Florida Department of Law Enforcement report said his blood-alcohol content was 0.03, below the 0.08 limit at which state law presumes a driver is impaired.

But Assistant State Attorney Kim Seace said they couldn't use the results in court.

The reason she gave: When a defendant refuses a breath test, as Lapanne did, a forced blood draw is allowed only if authorities have evidence that someone sustained "serious bodily injury" in the crash.

Serious injury or not?

In his report, Brock said a charge nurse at Brandon Hospital told him that one of the car crash victims "was being treated as a trauma alert." He did not name the nurse. Based on that information, he conducted the forced blood draw, his report states.

However, the victim told prosecutors that neither she nor her husband had been seriously injured, Seace said. Medical records from the hospital backed that claim, Seace added.

Hillsborough County Fire Rescue records indicate that emergency workers responded to a "minor two-vehicle accident, " said spokesman Ray Yeakley. He said a victim with injuries that weren't life-threatening was taken to the hospital.

Serious bodily injury, by state law, "creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

Seace said she provided the medical records to the Sheriff's Office with the understanding that investigators would interview the charge nurse to discuss Brock's claims.

On Wednesday, she did not know if that occurred and could not say for certain what Brock had been told about the victim's condition.

But prosecutors were convinced that blood test results would be thrown out by a judge before trial. They dropped the case on Oct. 24 without ever formally filing charges against Lapanne, Seace said.

Then, based on a request by the Sheriff's Office, Seace said, prosecutors turned their attention to whether Brock committed a crime in his handling of the case. Specifically, they considered whether he might have made an incorrect official statement.

It was this review, Hillsborough State Attorney Mark Ober said Wednesday, that generated a letter from Chief Assistant State Attorney Karen Stanley on Nov. 6. Her letter said the "facts in this case meet the element of a crime" but would be best handled administratively by the Sheriff's Office.

But in Brock's internal affairs report, quoted widely by media outlets in recent days, Detective Bruce Crumpler stated that Stanley's letter referred to a different driving under the influence case involving the deputy.

Crumpler, who conducted the internal affairs investigation, wrote that Stanley sent the memo after reviewing the July 17, 2006, DUI arrest of Kristopher Amos. The internal investigation found that Brock submitted a second arrest report on Amos weeks after his arrest that contained revised field sobriety test results.

The subject line of Stanley's Nov. 6 letter includes the case number of the internal affairs probe into Brock released last week. But the letter does not specify a particular DUI case.

Investigator Crumpler and prosecutor Stanley spoke Wednesday about the genesis of her letter. Afterward, representatives from their offices still couldn't agree on whether it was about Amos or Lapanne.

A case of confusion

Sheriff's spokesman J.D. Callaway said Crumpler still contended the letter was about the Amos case.

Based on the Sheriff's Office internal audit, the State Attorney's Office is conducting a review of Brock's conduct to decide if criminal charges are warranted.

Brock and his attorney were unavailable Wednesday for comment.

Lapanne's attorney, Jeff Paulk, said his client may have a civil damages claim, too. The arrest required Lapanne, 49, who works in home restoration in St. Petersburg, to post bond, pay a lawyer and fight with his insurance company for money to repair his damaged truck.

Having blood drawn against his will was the most serious price Lapanne paid.

Charlie Musselwhite, a master deputy with the Pickens County Sheriff’s Office, has been recognized in South Carolina for the number of arrests made in 2006 for driving under the influence.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving recently presented the award in Columbia.

In agencies with up to 100 officers, Deputy Musselwhite was awarded the Agency Hero Award for leading the state with 36 arrests, according to information provided by Pickens County Sheriff C. David Stone.

A Pickens deputy also won the award in 2005.

Add Illinois and Arizona to the list of states that now require alcohol interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, according to a press release.Alcohol ignition interlocks are devices that require drivers to blow into a tube, similar to a breathalyzer. If the driver's alcohol level is above a pre-set blood alcohol content, the car will not start. Louisiana, New York, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are all considering interlock laws.

The legislation was passed due in part to pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD. "Alcohol ignition interlocks, when installed and monitored, save thousands of lives and help save society money in part by giving offenders the ability to drive without endangering the public," said MADD CEO Chuck Hurley. The legislation is part of MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which was launched in Novemeber 2006 amid reports of rising drunk driving fatalities. According to a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DUI fatalities jumped almost 3 percent to 13,990 in 2006, up from 13,13 the previous year. Overall traffic fatalities dropped by .3 percent, underscoring the increase in DUI related deaths.

New Mexico was the first state to develop mandatory alcohol interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers, and the results show that the devices work in preventing road deaths. In the first year of the program, alcohol related injury crashes dropped by 20 percent and alcohol related crashes dropped by 17 percent.

In addition to pushing for the alcohol interlock devices, members of MADD's National Board of Directors are also meeting with members of Congress to help develop strategies that have been proven to work in reducing DUI related fatalities. "It's clear that more of the same will not help in the fight to make our roads safer," said MADD National President Glynn Birch. "We still have states without the most effective tools in place to deter and stop drunk driving -- sobriety checkpoints and ignition interlocks. These tools stop higher-risk offenders and first-time drunk drivers. There is no justification for not using the tools we know will save lives and prevent injuries." Almost 14,000 people were killed by drunk drivers with blood alcohol content of at least .08 percent last year. The statistics mark the highest number of drunk driving fatalities since 1992.

Other recommendations by MADD to reduce drunk driving include intensive high-visibility law enforcement, development of advanced vehicle technologies to prevent drunk driving and grassroots support led by MADD and its 400+ affiliates.

PHOENIX Arizona

First-time DUI offenders have lost a chance to dodge a new state law requiring them to install a device on their cars preventing them from drinking and driving.

An effort to repeal the law, which passed last month, died Wednesday after it failed to get enough support from a committee of six Republican and Democratic lawmakers, said Republican Rep. John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills, who wrote the repeal.

"I'm very disappointed," Kavanagh said. "The law is a useless weapon in the war against drunk driving. The police and courts need effective weapons to battle drunk driving. We're letting the public down."

Kavanagh said he also tried to drum up support for a watered-down version of the amendment that would have required first-time offenders to install the devices only if a judge ordered them to do so based on aggravating circumstances, such as a criminal record.

But support for that also was lacking, he said.

That means the new requirement passed last month stands as state law. It should go into effect 90 days from the end of the legislative session.

State law already required repeat DUI offenders or those convicted of extreme or aggravated DUI to use breath-testing ignition interlocks once their driving privileges are restored.

The new requirement, signed into law by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, made Arizona the only state besides New Mexico to have an interlock requirement for first-time drunken driving offenders.

Though the new requirement easily won approval at the Legislature, some lawmakers said at the time that they hoped a special committee would scale back the requirement.

Kavanagh, who at first supported the requirement, said he changed his mind because he since read up on studies that conclude the devices don't lead to a reduction in traffic accidents or repeat offenses by first-time offenders.

"The whole rationale behind this is a blanket net that puts all first and non-extremes on the interlock and scoops up the people who will never re-offend," he said.

Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Gilbert said he was glad the repeal died.

"It was an attempt to weaken the prosecution of a person convicted of DUI, so I had a problem with that," he said.

San Diego DUI news

June 20, 2007

CHULA VISTA, California – A Spring Valley man charged in the slaying of a 24-year-old woman will get no deals on unrelated charges of DUI - drugs and evading police, a prosecutor told a judge yesterday.

Under the three strikes law, Robert Steven Carson faces a prison term of 25 years to life if convicted of the driving charges because of his criminal record. Deputy District Attorney John Rice rejected efforts by Carson's lawyer, Nicholas DePento, to resolve the case without going to trial.

Carson, 40, a registered sex offender convicted of rape and assault to commit rape, has been charged with murder in the slaying of Brittany Hart of Santee, whose body was found Friday in the Cleveland National Forest. He has pleaded not guilty.

Mason set an Aug. 3 readiness hearing for Rice and DePento to discuss a possible settlement. If no agreement is reached then, the judge set an Aug. 16 hearing to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a trial on the driving charges.

Rice said the only settlement he will accept was if Carson pleads guilty to all charges.

Carson was charged with driving under the influence of drugs and evading police with reckless abandon in Coronado in November. He faces a preliminary hearing July 31 in El Cajon Superior Court in the Hart slaying case.

Carson was free on $50,000 bail on the driving charges when Hart disappeared May 24. The judge yesterday increased the bail on the DUI and evasion charges to $186,000, but said it was moot since Carson is being held without bail on the murder charge.

DePento told the judge that he was close to reaching a settlement with the District Attorney's Office on the driving charges when Carson was arrested in connection with Hart's slaying. DePento said he was awaiting completion of a psychological evaluation of Carson, which Judge Robert J. Trentacosta ordered as part of settlement talks on the DUI - drugs & evasion charges.

Because of graning more time, there has been a postponement of the hearing to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to try Carson on the DUI charges.

ABC's American Inventor contestant Rayfil Wong of San Francisco invents the Sober Key. Sober Key aims to prevent drunk drivers access to their keys. After his nationally televised appearance, Rayfil Wong's energetic performance that included a robot dance has spread quickly over YouTube and has appeared on VH1's Best Week Ever.

I was saddened to find out that drinking and driving is one America's top preventable violent crimes. I was inspired to audition after watching William Hung on


San Francisco, CA June 20, 2007 -- ABC's "American Inventor" reject Rayfil Wong increase drunk driving awareness with the invention of the Sober Key.



Hong Kong - born UC Berkeley graduate inventor Rayfil Wong uses his appearance on ABC's American Inventor to increase drunk driving awareness. As a former Anheuser-Busch Budweiser marketing representative involved in weekend club promotions, Rayfil Wong saw numerous drivers who were under the influence. The Sober Key is an alcohol detector integrated to a key lock that aims to prevent drunk drivers access to their keys. Rayfil Wong developed Sober Key after researching with his local police station and researching the movement behind M.A.D.D (mother's against drunk driving).

One week after his televised appearance, Rayfil Wong's energetic presentation combined with his animated sounds and robot dance has been seen on YouTube as wells as VH1's "Best Week Ever." In just over a week, Rayfil Wong has had over 4,000 views of his appearance on "American Inventor" on YouTube. Rayfil Wong said, "I was saddened to find out that drinking and driving is one America's top preventable violent crimes. I was inspired to audition after watching William Hung on "American Idol", who is also a Hong Kong native and UC Berkeley educated.

Rayfil Wong auditioned for the "American Inventor" in March 2007 and was among about five hundred contestants.

An off-duty police officer has been charged with drunk driving after allegedly striking a Westville police cruiser.

Michael May, 28, of National Park, a Lumberton patrolman, has been charged with driving under the influence and assault by auto, West Deptford Police Chief Craig Mangano said Tuesday. May is temporarily taking leave time while the investigation is completed.

Police said the accident happened shortly before 3 a.m. Saturday at the intersection of Route 45 and Colonial Avenue.

Westville patrolman Michael Packer, 25, was traveling south on Route 45 toward Woodbury when his patrol car was struck on the driver's side door by a black 2000 Nissan Xterra as it attempted to make a left turn onto Colonial Avenue.

Packer, who had to be cut out of his patrol car, was taken to Underwood-Memorial Hospital in Woodbury where he was treated and released.

Packer, the son of former Westville Mayor William Packer, is a rookie officer and was driving a new cruiser. He returned to duty the next day.

The Borough of Westville purchased the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor early last year, said Westville Mayor Michael Galbraith.

The incident is still under investigation by the West Deptford Police Department. Once completed, the investigation will be forwarded to the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office for possible filing of DUI / drunk driving charges.

74 year old Jerry Buss faces misdemeanor counts of California DUI or driving under the influence of alcohol, after his arrest last month in Carlsbad, California.

The San Diego County district attorney's office charged the owner of the Lakers with one count of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and one count of driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08% or greater.

The nature of any alleged drug was not specified. In California, the DUI charge includes the words alcohol and/or drugs so there may be no drugs whatsoever. Buss allegedly declined to take a chemical test at the time. That may mean there is no proof of alcohol either. Much remains to be seen.

Dr. Buss, who owns a beautiful home in San Diego County, was pulled over May 29 after his gold Mercedes allegedly crossed over a double yellow line while making a turn. Buss, who had a great-looking 23-year-old woman in the car with him, must appear on July 10 to enter a not guilty to the California DUI.

Buss has been vacationing this summer, recently meeting with Kobe Bryant in Spain.

Nicole Richie is set for a California DUI trial, as ordered by a Los Angeles California Court.

The socialite, whose California DUI attorneys have already been successful in delaying the case five times have got new date for the California DUI trial that will now take place on 11th July.

It looks like ‘The Simple Life’ actress who has been escaping a California DUI trial from long time, will have to stand it this time.

Richie's California DUI lawyer Shawn Chapman Holley insisted that the actress might not attend the California drunk driving trial this time as well and they are studying the case to form grounds for plea agreement in lieu of a California DUI trial.

The actress is facing trial for her arrest on December 11, 2006, when she was arrested by the California Highway Patrol after she failed a California DUI field sobriety test.

She admitted to using marijuana and Vicodin before the incident.

Earlier also she has been arrested in Malibu, California and charged with possession of heroin in February 2003. She was also driving with a suspended driver's license.

If Richie undergoes trial she might be convicted for minimum 5 days or even one year in the California DUI jail.

Priest Crashes Into Restaurant, Arrested For DWI

A priest is charged with DUI after crashing the pickup truck he was driving into a restaurant.

Father Karel Fink, the pastor of St. Paul Parish according to the Diocese of Austin, was arrested Monday night for drunk driving.

From the outside, plywood covers up the physical damage at the La Cabana Restaurant. But broken tables, chairs and overturned booths inside tell a much scarier, emotional story.

Fink crashed into the restaurant, according to the Diocese, around 7 p.m.

Restaurant owner Gina Chronis says everyone was in shock.

"I was livid. I did not know that he had been drinking,” Chronis said. “Obviously, I didn't know he had problems. Personally it was a shock to me to find out that it was our Father."

Six people were injured, including Christie and Megan Mick.

"Everyone was screaming, glass was flying,” Megan Mick said. “No one knew what was happening. People were on the floor and stuck and yelling. It was really scary."

"We didn't know if it was a bomb or what it was at first,” Christie Mick said. “I just remember the glass flying and my kids screaming and us moving across the restaurant."

According to the Diocese of Austin, the 61-year-old priest had just been released from rehab a few weeks ago after being treated for alcoholism.

The Diocese says Bishop Gregory Aymond will decide what should happen next involving Father Fink when Aymond returns from an out of town trip.

The Catholic Diocese says Father Karel Fink was ordained in 1991 in the Diocese of Austin. He has been pastor in Smithville for more than nine years.

An Illinois man convicted of drunken driving in Indiana has asked the Illinois Supreme Court whether it was fair for Illinois authorities to suspend his driver's license.

In a petition for leave to appeal, Darold A. Miller Jr. contends that the state's decision to revoke his license violates the ''letter and spirit'' of the Illinois Driver's License Compact. 625 ILCS 5/6-703(a).

''The compact requires the secretary to give the same effect to petitioner's conduct reported by Indiana as he would if such conduct had occurred in Illinois,'' the petition contends. ''It does not say the report of conviction controls, but it is the conduct that controls.

''The goal is to provide uniformity among the members of the compact, and to make enforcement of licensing laws more equitable. To allow petitioner to be treated more harshly because his offense was committed in Indiana frustrates the purpose of the compact,'' the petition contends.

Miller was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in Newton County, Ind., on Jan. 9, 2005. According to his petition, Miller pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation and assessed $1,100 in fines and costs.

The Indiana court made a ''special finding,'' quoted in the petition, ordering ''that the Clerk of Newton County Superior Court is directed to transmit to the Illinois Secretary of State that the plea of the defendant, Darold A. Miller Jr., and accompanying sentence be treated as a Supervision Order pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/5-6-1(c) in the State of Illinois.'' Indiana apparently does not have court supervision comparable to that in Illinois.

The secretary of state suspended Miller's license anyway, so he challenged the decision in Sangamon County Circuit Court.

Circuit Judge Leslie J. Graves reversed the secretary of state and ordered that Miller's license be reinstated.

Graves concluded that the secretary of state improperly violated the compact when his office ''failed to give the same effect to conduct occurring out of the state, as it would had such conduct occurred in Illinois.''

''[P]laintiff's sentence is entitled to be treated as supervision under the provision of section 5-6-1(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections … in that the Indiana court specifically found that plaintiff should be granted court supervision,'' Graves held, as quoted in Miller's petition. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-1(c).

The 4th District Appellate Court, however, disagreed and reinstated the secretary of state's order to rescind Miller's driving privileges.

Justice Sue E. Myerscough wrote the opinion, which the court published at the request of the state; Justices Robert J. Steigmann and Robert W. Cook concurred. Miller v. White, No. 4-06-0673 (April 9, 2007).

Miller had pointed out that ''special findings'' are explicitly authorized by section 6-702 of the Vehicle Code, and argued that the secretary of state was wrong to ''ignore'' the Indiana judge's special finding that Miller's conviction be treated as supervision.

''However,'' Myerscough wrote, ''plaintiff has not cited, nor has our research revealed, authority for the proposition that a court sitting in another state has the authority to order the secretary how to treat citizens of this state who have been convicted of DUI or a 'substantially similar' offense in other states.''

The Appellate Court also noted that Indiana law does not appear to provide for supervision to a person convicted of drunken driving.

''It defies logic to give a court sitting in another jurisdiction the authority to require the secretary to treat a sentence as court supervision when the sentencing court could not impose such a sentence in the state in which it sits,'' Myerscough wrote.

The Appellate Court cited two cases to support its conclusions. In Schultz v. Edgar, 170 Ill.App.3d 36 (1988), an Illinois driver was convicted of DUI in Wisconsin, where his license was suspended for three months.

The Illinois secretary of state revoked the driver's privileges, but the circuit court overturned that decision, finding that the secretary could not ''add punishment on punishment.''

The Schultz court reversed, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that he might have received supervision had he been prosecuted in Illinois because he was a first-time offender.

Schultz held that ''this argument provides no basis to overturn the revocation of plaintiff's driver's license where he committed a DUI offense while on a Wisconsin highway and was therefore subject to the laws of that jurisdiction.''

''Furthermore, not every first-time DUI offender in Illinois is granted court supervision, which is a determination solely within the discretion of the trial court,'' the Schultz court held.

Miller counter in his petition to appeal that, unlike in Schultz, the Indiana judge specifically found him eligible for supervision.

The Appellate Court also rejected a would-have-had-supervision-in-Illinois argument in Mills v. Edgar, 178 Ill.App.3d 1054 (1989). In that case the court affirmed a suspension based on a Colorado conviction, finding the supervision argument too speculative.

But Miller contends that his eligibility for supervision is not speculative ''because the trial judge in the Indiana court stated its order was to be considered one of court supervision under Illinois law.''

Miller also noted that Illinois' supervision has benefited drivers in other states. An Illinois DUI conviction with supervision for a Pennsylvania man originally earned him a suspension in his home state. But the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that because the driver got supervision in Illinois, it could not be treated like a conviction in Pennsylvania. Felbaum v. DOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 860 A.2d 1168 (Pa. 2004).

Miller is represented by Ronald E. Boyer of Watseka.

The case is Darold A. Miller Jr. v. Jesse White, Secretary of State, No. 104815.

PLEASANTVILLE, New Jersey

The board of education president here has apologized to the community following a weekend DWI accident in which he totaled his SUV, according to The Press of Atlantic City.

James Pressley was arrested on charges of drunk driving after he struck a car stopped at a red light at New Road and the Black Horse Pike. No one was injured in the wreck.

Legislators propose a New York bill creating harsher penalties for DUI or drunk drivers convicted in a fatal accident.

A spokesman for Governor Spitzer says the governor will sign the bill into law after the Senate and Assembly pass it this week.

The deal was struck after an emotional plea by a mother who recounted holding her dead daughter following a crash after a family wedding on Long Island two years ago.

The bill was inspired by the crash that killed 7-year-old Katie Flynn. It moved unusually fast by Albany's standards. It was spurred along two weeks ago when Katie's mother recounted at a Senate press conference how she held her daughter's decapitated head immediately after the wreck that also killed the limousine driver.

The bill would create the crime of aggravated vehicular homicide, a Class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years to life in prison.

The bill would also create the crime of aggravated vehicular assault, a Class C felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The driver convicted in the Flynn crash, 25-year-old Martin Heidgen, was convicted of 2 counts of murder and sentenced to 18 years to life in prison.

US Airways CEO Doug "Dear Jerry" Parker has been ordered to spend a night in jail following an arrest for drunk driving the night he recalled his hostile bid for bankrupt Delta Airlines.

At a hearing in Scottsdale City court, Parker "accepted full and total responsibility for his recent DUI charge by entering a guilty plea to this charge (against the advice of his attorney)," US Airways said in a statement.

Parker was ordered to spend 24 hours in jail, was fined $1,646.25 and ordered to receive alcohol screening at the Center for Recovering Families, according to the Scottsdale City Court Clerk's office.

A second DUI charge and a speeding charge were dismissed.

Parker was stopped for speeding, driving 65 mph in a 45 zone. ( In California, that would be an Excessive Speed enhancement carrying 60 days consecutive custody if convicted. )

06/19/07

NORWICH, Connecticut

Former NBA All-Star Vin Baker played for 14years in the NBA career. Allegedly, he was marred by bouts of depression and alcoholism. Tuesday Vin was charged with drunk driving after leaving a Connecticut casino.

Baker was spotted allegedly driving erratically after leaving Foxwoods Resort Casino. He allegedly failed a sobriety test and was charged with DWI.

A four-time All-Star 35 year old forward who attended the University of Hartford, Baker averaged a solid 15 points and 7.5 rebounds in a fine NBA career that ended in 2006.

California

One 16-year-old girl died a day after being struck by a sport utility vehicle while riding her bicycle through an intersection.

Jessica Poungchailpuek of Buena Park, California died about 12:30 p.m. Monday at U.C. Irvine Medical Center in Orange, California.

The alleged DUI crash occurred about 4:40 p.m. Sunday when Poungchailpuek pedaled across Knott Avenue at Crescent Avenue, in California.

Poungchailpuek had the green light when George Bridgeforth Jr., 29, went through the red light at 40 miles per hour and hit the teen. He was suspected of allegedly being DUI.

Bridgeforth Jr. was arrested on suspicion of felony drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter, and George Bridgeforth Sr., his 56-year-old father, was arrested after police said he allegedly lied to them about who was driving the vehicle.

Bridgeforth was driving on a suspended license, per the media.

June 19, 2007

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is outraged at the one-year jail sentence and three-year driving ban given to a 56-year-old B.C. man following his eighth drunk driving or impaired driving conviction.

The three-year ban for Angus Martin Craigan of Sechelt is the minimum driving prohibition under the Criminal Code of Canada for drivers convicted of drunk driving three times or more.

MADD spokesman John Banovich says repeat offenders should be banned from driving for life.

"Their driver's licence needs to be removed. They should not be allowed to drive. Period. A drinking driver is a lethal weapon."

Banovich, who nearly died in a crash involving an impaired driver in Surrey 10 years ago, said the public needs to pay more attention to habitual impaired drivers.

Two people fell overboard in two separate boating incidents on Dane County lakes this weekend.

Elise Schaffer with the Dane County Sheriff's office says in one case the victim was able to swim to shore. But in the other the person drowned. In both cases, she says, alcohol was involved.

Schaeffer says it's against the law for the person driving the boat to be intoxicated just as it is for someone driving a car. But it is different for passengers. There are no laws about people on the boat drinking as long as they don't drive it.

Schaeffer says, however, long hours on a Wisconsin lake during hot weather can mean more alcohol consumption and that can still be a deadly combination as seen in the death of the one man.

Schaeffer says neither victim was wearing a lifejacket which in the one tragic case may have made a difference.

Prosecutor charged with drunken driving over the weekend is leaving his job.

Police say Joseph Meany was arrested after he crashed into two parked cars on his way home early Saturday morning. Meany was charged with misdemeanor DWI / drunk driving and with refusing a field sobriety test.

Albany County District Attorney David Soares said today that he can't allow a person who took an oath to enforce the law, to knowingly break the law and then continue prosecuting people for the same crime.

Boxers Behaving Badly Update:

Toxicology test results showed that Diego Corrales had a blood-alcohol content of 0.25 percent – more than three times Nevada’s legal limit of 0.08 percent – when he died last month after crashing his motorcycle in southwest Las Vegas.

Corrales, who had previously been arrested multiple times for drunk driving, was riding without a valid license and was apparently speeding when he crashed.

Camacho, who was also sentenced to two years of probation, has another upcoming trial for alleged possession of the drug Ecstasy.

Kevin Rooney, a former fighter who received far more recognition as one of the men who helped build Mike Tyson into a heavyweight champion, was sentenced June 12 to five years of probation and fined $2,295, according to New York’s Kingston Daily Freeman.

Rooney had pleaded guilty last month to driving drunk, a felony charge due to his having been previously convicted of drunken driving within 10 years of his April 2006 arrest.

A man, suspected of driving under the influence, was charged with child abuse Sunday after he was involved in a car wreck and officials found his 14-month-old daughter in the car.

Adrian Mascorra, 24, was charged with child abuse-intentional following the DUI arrest Sunday in Anthony, N.M.

Doña Ana County sheriffs deputies were dispatched to 504 Camino Real in Anthony after receiving a report that a vehicle struck a building and drove away. The driver and child were not injured.

Thousands of Princeton University alumni return to the area to attend reunion weekend, three days of partying that features the Saturday afternoon P-rade, where alumni parade by class and sometimes deck themselves out in themed costumes.

This summer, seven of the alumni will be back in the area to face drunken driving charges in municipal court.

Police and prosecutors say it's been happening for years. The reunion weekend draws up to 20,000 people to the campus, there's a lot of partying, and the odds are that some will end up in handcuffs after getting behind the wheel DUI.

They put on extra officers every year for the reunions, which traditionally start on a Thursday and run through Saturday night. One team of officers is especially looking for the signs of drinking and drunk driving.

Police take no pleasure in locking up someone attending the reunions, which he said for the most part, is a great event for the borough and the university.

However, none of the arrests at the recent alumni weekend, May 31 to June 2, involved crashes.

In all, the seven comprise two corporate vice presidents, two managing directors, a partner at a law firm, and two men in their 70s who were in town for their 50th reunion.

A man convicted of aggravated DUI was sentenced today to 25 years in prison with 10 years suspended.

Jaison O. Harness, of Jackson, Miss. brushed away tears and sighed heavily throughout his relatives’ pleas for mercy to the judge.

Jurors agreed that Harness was driving drunk when he collided with a vehicle driven by Clyde Hampton, 51. Hampton later died at Baptist Medical Center from internal bleeding.

Harness’ blood-alcohol level was .11 about four hours after the crash. He denied that he had been drinking.

Harness was driving about 67 mph on a street with a speed limit of 40 mph, according to a Jackson police accident investigator. Hampton was driving about 35 mph.

Being on a billboard as "Lady DUI" is pretty surprising.

Teresa DiNardi's boss at the law firm is into marketing, and they wanted to expand their way into Hartford.

He called her "Lady DUI" because he thought it was catchy and people would remember it.

She had never been on a billboard before and is not a glamour lady. Marshals, court staff tell her how they saw her on the billboard.

She always wanted to be an attorney. Her philosophy in representing the clients that come to her is that everyone drinks and drives. She thinks only a hypocrite says they don't. She does not think of clients as bad people. You'd be surprised who gets arrested for DUI.

It's a crime that has no intent. Some get caught, and others don't. She loves her job.

June 16, 2007

New York bar bouncer Sean Basdavanos has filed a $5 million lawsuit against a "rich frat boy" drunk driver college student who allegedly tried to run him down after being ejected from a Long Island country-club bar.

The bouncer threw Sayed El-Waraky out of the Soundview Restaurant at the Glen Cove Golf Club on the night of June 18, 2006.

El-Waraky was convicted last month of misdemeanor DWI and leaving the scene of an accident that caused injuries, but the jurors could not agree on the more serious assault charges.

After the drunk driving conviction, Basdavanos wanted the DA to re-try El-Waraky on the assault charges.

Their theory: This was a spoiled rich frat boy with a bad attitude and a bad temper. Once he got into that eight-cylinder weapon, hell broke loose.

San Diego California Lawyer DUI news:

Police officer Brock became a rock star deputy known for making a record number of drunk drivers and locking them up.

But the puffed up numbers came at the expense of innocent victims.

A lengthy internal affairs investigation showed dozens of people arrested for DUIs who weren’t even drunk.

Leo Palacious got caught in Brock’s zealous round-up.

Leo says Deputy Brock falsely accused him of drinking and driving while he was at home.

“He didn’t show no remorse. He just said, ‘another one!!’…he told me he’s locked up a lot of people for DUI,” Palacious said.

Last summer, Leo had been drinking when he began arguing with his father at their Riverview home. A nervous relative called police. Minutes later, Deputy Brock showed up.

“’Are you Leo? Yes, lets go.’ Just grabbed me and stuck me in the car and we took off and he went and gave me a field sobriety test”, explained Palacious.

Shocked, confused and bewildered, Leo hired an attorney and had the charges dropped.

But Leo wasn’t alone.

David Chalela represents another victim who was arrested in 2002 for DUI and disorderly conduct. But records show when she took a breathalyzer, she blew a .00.

“We feel this is a very egregious case of abuse of police authority,” said Chalela Those charges were also dropped.

Aside from bogus arrests, investigators say Brock violated policy by taking into custody more than one alleged drunk driver at a time.

In addition, 40 percent of the time, there was no dash cam video, and often, no field sobriety test.

As for Leo’s brush with a rogue cop, it’s shaken his confidence in those who wear the uniform.

“I know there are some good ones and some bad ones. That day, I got a bad one,” he said.

With 1,500 powder blue fliers and nearly two dozen friends, an Elgin man spent more than two hours Saturday at the intersection in Wood Dale where his older brother was killed seven years ago.

The fliers were given to motorists, asking them to never drink and drive. The people passing them out were friends of a dead teenager who wish Richard Gancarz had gotten that message.

Gancarz was a truck driver sentenced to 14 years in prison for reckless homicide and aggravated DUI in the wake of 17-year-old Aric Wooley's death two days before Father's Day 2000.

Gancarz was convicted of DUI for marijuana use. He never submitted to a Breathalyzer, but authorities said he had been drinking the day he killed the recent high school graduate from Schaumburg, IL.

From 11 p.m. until 3 a.m. officers funneled nearly 800 cars through a sobriety checkpoint at the Hanover-Henrico county line on U.S. 360.

More than 100 drivers were questioned and had their licenses checked. Six were arrested on charges of driving under the influence. Ten others were administered breath tests that were positive for alcohol levels within legal limits.

"At first, you get the ones who have been drinking and get really mad because you've stopped them from getting home on time," said a veteran law enforcement officer on the scene.

"Then you get the ones who are more intoxicated and know they've been caught. They are the happy-goofy ones."

Before the evening was over, Hanover deputies had issued 33 summonses and arrested an additional 14 people on other offenses, ranging from drugs to outstanding warrants on immigration violations.

Immobile, expensive and labor-intensive, sobriety checkpoints are the fishing net of roadway law enforcement -- catching everyone who enters but keeping only the violators, including impaired mo- torists.

"DUI road checkpoints, in and of themselves, are not necessarily designed to catch people under the influence," said Sgt. Rob Netherland, who supervises DUI checkpoints and patrols for Henrico County.

But Netherland and other officials say checkpoints do provide a worthwhile deterrent against people getting behind the wheel after they drink -- a complement to the mobile and focused "saturation patrols," in which officers hit the road and actively target motorists whose driving suggests they may be under the influence.

"It's kind of like shock and awe," Hanover County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Mike Trice said of checkpoints.

"We're after the killers of the road, the predators," said Trice. "[A sobriety checkpoint] garners a lot of attention, and it's hard to evaluate what you may have prevented just by being out there."

And when it comes to drinking and driving in Virginia, there are plenty of killers out there.

. . .

In 2006, there were 374 alcohol-related deaths in Virginia -- the highest number since 2002, when there were 375 deaths, according to the Department of Motor Vehicles Highway Safety Office.

In the 20-locality Richmond region, 62 people were killed in alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities last year. There were also 29,595 DUI convictions in state in 2006 -- the highest numbers in 15 years. State figures show 4,510 people were convicted of DUI in the Richmond region last year.

Not surprisingly, law enforcement officials and anti-drinking groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving endorse the use of sobriety checkpoints, which are legal in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

"We support both checkpoints and saturation patrols," said Chris R. Konschak, the executive director of MADD in Virginia and the District of Columbia.

"If you can get both of them going, you can you can pull some drivers off the road who would otherwise potentially hit and kill, or injure someone else."

Sobriety checkpoints are not exempt from criticism -- that they are costly, have limited effectiveness and unnecessarily inconvenience law-abiding motorists.

"Sobriety checkpoints are like asking the enemy to come into your camp and surrender," said Sarah Longwell, spokeswoman for the American Beverage Institute, which represents the restaurant and bar industry and favors roving patrols over checkpoints.

"It's because they are highly visible, and most seasoned drunk drivers -- and most of them out there driving drunk are -- just go around them," she added. "They yield a very low actual arrest rate of drunk drivers."

Area law enforcement agencies conduct sobriety checkpoints on selected occasions but put more emphasis on saturation patrols to catch DUI violators by targeting motorists who drive recklessly, aggressively or at high speeds.

In 2006, Henrico County police conducted eight sobriety checkpoints, resulting in 23 DUI arrests -- a small number compared with the 855 DUI convictions the county recorded that year from arrests on routine patrols and other anti-drinking initiatives.

The Hanover Sheriff's Office ran four sobriety checkpoints in 2006, yielding 12 DUI arrests. The county recorded 337 DUI convictions that year.

Four sobriety checkpoints run by Richmond Police last year netted three DUI arrests in a city that recorded 590 DUI convictions, though officers made 170 arrests on related and unrelated offenses.

Though checkpoint arrest numbers are a small portion of overall DUI convictions in the larger counties in the region, officials said the primary goal of a checkpoint is deterrence, not racking up DUI arrests.

On many occasions, the checkpoints are extensively publicized.

"They are more about the perception that we're out there," said Netherland, the Henrico police sergeant. "It's a deterrent."

"We get more DUI-related arrests [with saturation patrols] because the officers know exactly what they are looking for," he said.

Sobriety checkpoints aren't cheap, requiring a substantial amount of manpower and resources -- the primary reason the operations are often conducted around busy travel days and holidays.

For example, the Hanover checkpoint on May 25 involved more than a dozen Hanover deputies, two reserve officers and five troopers from the Virginia State Police, who work with local jurisdictions in dozens of sobriety checkpoints across the state each year.

Hanover estimated its cost for running the four-hour checkpoint at $1,600, plus the cost of the state police officers, who account for their time separately. The checkpoint was funded by federal grant money.

"It's less expensive to do a saturation patrol," said Hanover Sgt. Drew Darby, who supervised the May 25 checkpoint. "You don't use as many people, but you can cover a wider area."

Unlike checkpoints, which can require a dozen or more officers to stop traffic and check hundreds of vehicles, saturation patrols can involve as few as two or three officers whose focus is on identifying impaired motorists. Darby said a typical saturation patrol involving two officers could cost around $300.

Most jurisdictions depend on National Highway Transportation Safety Administration grants distributed by the state, and funding from nonprofits, to sponsor the overtime costs and additional equipment needed for checkpoints.

The Department of Motor Vehicles last year awarded more than $3.4 million in highway safety grants to Virginia localities. The 20-locality Richmond region received more than $500,000 in funding, earmarked for checkpoints and other highway safety initiatives.

The state police, which patrols interstate highways and assumes policing duties in many rural counties in the state, conducted nearly 281 saturation patrols between July and December last year as part of the federally funded Checkpoint Strikeforce program, spokeswoman Corinne Geller said.

Officials said saturation patrols might be more precise when it comes to catching people who are driving under the influence.

"Obviously one of the key indicators of DUIs is driving behavior," said Maj. John Austin of the Chesterfield County Police Department, which ran eight sobriety checkpoints and 321 saturation patrols in 2006 as part of its DUI strategy, resulting in 1,212 convictions last year, the most in the region according to the DMV.

"So being able to observe people driving is a way for us to detect that. When you do a DUI checkpoint, obviously you're dependent on the vehicles that are coming through that location," Austin added.

"At least with the saturation patrols, you have the opportunity to be much more mobile and cover larger areas of territory, as well as probably observe more vehicles."

That night at the Hanover checkpoint, responsibility seemed to be in short supply.

The roadside parking lot resembled an accumulation of mutterings, bitter oaths, weaving flesh and plaintive squeals against a backdrop of flashing lights and idling squad cars.

"My girlfriend's had too much to drink for them to let her drive," said one man whose friend was being held temporarily because she had an elevated, but not illegal, alcohol level in her blood. Asked why he didn't get behind the wheel in her place, the man responded frankly:

"Because I'm way more drunk than she is."

Another woman in handcuffs insisted she'd had only a single beer as she leaned against her car for support. "But my babies are at home asleep!" she wailed in protest.

Konschak said regardless of how law enforcement approaches the problem, the aim is the same.

"Our goal is just to get drunk drivers off the road," he said.

Every day, however, there are reminders that the job is far from over.

Just two weeks after the Memorial Day checkpoint, Darby was sitting in the parking lot of the Virginia Credit Union on U.S. 360 when he saw a man run his pickup truck into the curb of the ATM lane and pull past the machine.

The man then got of the truck, opened the hatch to the gas tank and removed the cap.

"He was trying to figure out where the nozzle was on the ATM," said Darby, recalling the incident. 3 times the limit, he was DUI.

Assistant Hamilton County Prosecutor Richard Guinan was one of eight people arrested Saturday in a DUI checkpoint on Dixie Highway near Woodridge Boulevard in Fairfield.

Guinan, 36, of Mount Washington, was arrested at 12:45 a.m. on a misdemeanor charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and a minor misdemeanor traffic charge of failing to drive within marked lanes, according to a Butler County Sheriff's Office report.

The report did not specify his blood-alcohol level or whether he was tested.

Guinan was released on bond from the Butler County Jail at 6 a.m., according to jail records. He'll next have to appear in Fairfield Municipal Court.

Guinan works in the prosecutor's office's felony division. In the past, drunken driving cases were among the cases he prosecuted.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters declined comment until he has more information.

Fairfield Police, the Ohio Highway Patrol and the Butler County Sheriff's Office conducted the checkpoint.

A total of 688 vehicles were checked. Authorities issued 25 seat belt citations, three citations for driving under suspended licenses, four for driving with no license and 14 unspecified citations.

June 15, 2007

LANCASTER

A former County emergency services director, accused of driving a county vehicle while intoxicated and allegedly causing a collision that killed a Parksville man, has been indicted on a murder charge.

Kentucky State Police would not say what Dwayne Nave's blood-alcohol level allegedly was when his vehicle crossed the center line on U.S. 27 near Bryantsville and slammed into a pickup about 1:15 a.m. April 29. Because it's an open / Murder investigation, the state police can't release that.

William L. Quinn, 43, who was trapped inside the pickup, was killed. Kevin L. Reed, a passenger in Quinn's truck, was injured.

No charges had been filed in the case until yesterday, when the Garrard County grand jury indicted Nave on murder and first-degree assault charges. He will be arraigned next month. State police plan to arrest Nave, 42. He presumably will be received in the Boyle County jail on a $100,000 bond.

Actress Vivica A. Fox was charged with a California DUI.

Vivica A. Fox was at the 34th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards in Los Angeles, on Friday, June 15, 2007. It was a huge learning lesson. She won't ever make that mistake again. She was a presenter for the Daytime Emmy Awards. Trust her. She's going to hire a driver next time.

Fox indicated she is in the process of trying to resolve her California DUI problems.

She doesn't think it's worth what you go through for getting a DUI.

Fox was arrested after passing a patrol car on the Hollywood Freeway at 80 mph and subsequently failing a field sobriety test, the California Highway Patrol said.

Breath tests indicated her blood-alcohol level was greater than .08 percent, California's legal limit for a driver.

Fox indicated she empathized with Paris Hilton, who is serving jail time for violating probation in an alcohol-related reckless driving case.

"We are not above the law," Fox indicated about celebrities. "She (Paris Hilton) is going to get more coverage when her butt gets out of jail. It's going to be a special alert and we all are going to watch (Paris Hilton), right?"

Fox, a star contestant on last year's "Dancing with the Stars," has appeared as an actress in such good films as "Kill Bill: Vol. 1," "Soul Food" and "Independence Day."

June 15, 2007

CHEYENNE, Wyoming - DUI laws go into effect July 1, 2007 making it tougher on DUI drivers and making it illegal to have open containers of alcohol in moving vehicles.

Wyoming Highway Patrol reports that it handled 59 crashes involving drugs or alcohol last year. Those crashes resulted in 66 deaths. They issued more than 1,300 citations for DUI in 2006.

The Wyoming Attorney General's office says outlawing open containers of alcohol in moving vehicles is an important step for the state. If people can drive around with open containers, it increases the number who are going to go over the legal limit.

Effective July 1st, also, is a new imposing jail terms of up to a year on a first conviction of DUI with a child passenger. A second DUI conviction could mean up to five years in prison.

Another law authorizes felony charges for drunk drivers who severely injure a person in a DUI collison.

A Bristol motor-vehicle accident in which an alleged intoxicated motorist's vehicle struck a utility pole, knocking it down, caused area homes and businesses to lose power early Friday morning.

As a result of the damage to the pole, which did not have a transformer box on it, power outages extended beyond the immediate area to as far west as King Street, police said.
Traffic Lt. Kevin Morrell said the accident occurred shortly after midnight Friday, when the vehicle Celine P. Ratte, 27, of Unionville was driving northbound on Stafford Avenue veered off the right side of the road and struck the utility pole, snapping it at the base.
Responding officers determined that Ratte, who according to reports was the sole occupant of the vehicle and did not complain of injuries, was allegedly DUI or intoxicated at the time of the accident.
Though the utility pole did not fall across the roadway, police had to close Stafford Avenue between Bel Air Road and Jewell Street until CL&P crews could repair the damaged pole.
About an hour later, according to Morrell, Jeffrey Cameron, 29, of 65 Mark St. attempted to make his own detour around the scene by driving his vehicle off the side of the road and up onto the curb and sidewalk lining that area of Stafford Avenue. He then drove around the police cruiser and traffic cones set up to block the road.
The officer on scene at the time was able to stop Cameron, and after determining that he too was intoxicated, arrested him for DUI.

State Senate candidate Terry Thomas called for stiffer drunken driving penalties during a televised forum Wednesday, though he was convicted for a 1988 DUI.

He maintains the police stop leading to his arrest was unfounded, though he accepted the conviction.

"If that's the only thing I've done wrong, that's fine," he said. "I never had a problem before, never after."

His record with the State Law Enforcement Division lists no other arrests in the state. Detailed records of the incident could not be obtained at press time from the North Myrtle Beach Public Safety Division.

Thomas said he stood by his comment on toughening DUI penalties. In his case, he paid a $268 fine, according to his state record. He also was required to take a course and attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, he added.

His opponents, Republican Rep. Catherine Ceips of Beaufort and Libertarian Greg Graziani of Hilton Head Island, have no records of arrest in the state.

June 15, 2007

PHOENIX, AZ - Will there be mandatory ignition interlocks for all drunk drivers?

The fight is on.

Senators are willing to accept a partial repeal of a month-old law which says anyone convicted of even a single DUI can only operate a motor vehicle with an interlock for one year. These devices prevent a vehicle from starting if the motorist has had more than just a minimal amount of alcohol.

The House gave final approval to legislation making several changes in drunk driving laws. SB 1582 even allows a judge to order those who arraigned on drunk driving charges not to drink while awaiting trial, and require them to wear a device that monitors sweat to ensure compliance.But the House version of SB 1582 also repeals a law signed by the governor earlier this year expanding the use of interlocks.

Law mandates interlocks for years for those convicted of "extreme'' DUI - meaning a blood-alcohol content of at least 0.15 - and those who are repeat offenders. But the law signed last month says all convicted of even a single offense of driving with a BAC of at least 0.08, the legal limit, must install devices on any vehicle..

The offer would require interlocks only for those whose BAC reaches 0.10. That eliminates those who while intoxicated - and still breaking the law and facing other punishment - are just slightly over the legal limit.

Gov. Janet Napolitano indicates she is unwilling to undo the provisions a bill she just signed.

One representative wants to give judges the option to order installation of interlocks rather than make it a mandate.

Efforts to make a compromise are also endangered by some on the other side of the issue who want to keep the original law intact.

Will this soften DUI laws? We'll see. The battle continues.

San Diego California DUI Lawyer news:


June 16, 2007


TAMPA - A top DUI deputy for making Drunk Driving arrests was fired last month after an internal investigation found he might have sent innocent people to jail.

What effect will Daniel Brock's dismissal have on any resolved or pending DUI cases he was involved with? It is presently unknown.

But if the former deputy was the prosecution's sole witness, it could be a handicap.

None of the DUI defendants arrested by Brock had as yet contacted the state attorney's office about dismissing their charges or having their convictions overturned. It is unknown how many of Brock's cases are still pending.

Much of Brock's personnel file at the sheriff's office is thick with commendations. He has earned awards for vigilance in removing impaired drivers from the roads. Supervisors praised Brock, 38, in annual performance reviews, calling him highly motivated, a leader in DUI arrests.

The most recent addition to the file was a dismissal form ending his 15 years on the job May 24. His written appeal was denied the next day.

Officials said Brock ignored the agency's standard operating procedures by not turning in DUI reports at the end of his shift, by writing the reports days afterward from memory rather than using field notes, and by conducting DUI investigations while having another suspect in his patrol car.

From October 2005 to October 2006, Brock arrested 313 motorists for allegedly driving while impaired, officials said. In 40 percent of those instances, he did not use his in-car video camera.

Even when he did record a video, his report sometimes conflicted with evidence on the tape, officials said.

On Oct. 25, 2005, Brock noted that a defendant with a .01 percent blood alcohol content had trouble walking, lost her balance and could not perform field sobriety tests adequately.

The video of the arrest showed differently, officials said. The woman did not lose her balance and did not show signs of impairment.

In Florida, a driver is considered to be impaired with a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher.

He apparently didn't prescribe to the theory that you have to be .08 to be drunk or impaired.

Brock denied to investigators that he was trying to boost his arrest totals.

The case was dropped by prosecutors after lab tests found no evidence of drugs in the woman's system.

Sheriff's Chief Deputy Jose Docobo said that although Brock's termination is embarrassing, the important thing to realize is that the agency acted quickly to investigate and resolve the issue, and that it is not evidence of any systemic problem with department policies or procedures.

Brock was hired in 1992 as a detention deputy. He has been a patrol deputy since 1996 and joined the agency's DUI enforcement unit four years ago, quickly becoming the highest producer of DUI arrests.

Last year, a Hillsborough County mother filed a federal lawsuit against Brock, alleging he used excessive force in arresting her in 2002 after arresting her teenage son. Her petition said that after she cursed at him and another deputy, Brock threatened to arrest her and then forced his way into her house, shoved her down and pepper-sprayed her.

The recent criminal investigation against Brock was launched when an assistant prosecutor with State Attorney Ober's office wrote a letter to the sheriff's office in October saying they no longer would accept testimony from Brock as a witness. Brock gained a reputation among prosecutors for providing weak cases with little or conflicting evidence.

At least once, he wrote two versions of the same DUI arrest report, officials said. He sent prosecutors the second version, written from memory and without getting the approval of his supervisor. It constituted a misdemeanor for falsifying records.

Prosecutors elected to forgo a criminal charge in lieu of the sheriff's administrative action.

Initially, the sheriff's office planned to suspend him for seven days over the double-report matter. His removal as a potential witness in criminal cases, though, resulted in his being unable to perform the duties of a deputy and led to his firing, according to documents.

After receiving the letter, sheriff's detectives audited a year's worth of Brock's DUI arrests - 313 cases - and the results alarmed them.

In 58 arrests, the defendant blew a blood alcohol content below .08 percent. In 41 of those cases, no urine sample was drawn, despite agency policy.

Brock told investigators he was like most deputies who often wrote affidavits while off duty or from memory, rather than at the end of a shift. He said he saw nothing wrong with that and said his arrests were legitimate.

His goal was to go there, process the person and be gone, out to the next DUI driver. Standard operating procedure of the sheriff's office, however, directs deputies to file reports by the end of a shift.

Anybody who felt wrongfully arrested by Brock for DUI but was later convicted has few options to get the case overturned. To open up a case that's already convicted is going to be very hard for people to actually do.

Paris Hilton's return to jail after a a legal tangle between the judge who sentenced her and the Los Angeles County sheriff has been the talk of the media, blogs and San Diego's legal community.

Would the Hilton fiasco have possibly happened in San Diego?

Those apparently in the know say inmates are routinely released after serving a fraction of their jail terms, and you don't have to be a pampered “celebutante” to be placed under house arrest.

It happens in San Diego for the same reason it happens in Los Angeles: overcrowded county jails. The topic provokes tension between judges who feel their decisions are being undermined and county sheriffs who are responsible for keeping a handle on the jail population.

Rarely in San Diego, according to those who work in the system, does a judge override the sheriff's decision to release an inmate, as Judge Michael T. Sauer did after Hilton was placed under house arrest.

The flap over the 26-year-old hotel heiress – who the sheriff said was moved for medical reasons – has ratcheted up the discussion locally about who ultimately gets to determine how long an inmate spends behind bars.

The San Diego County Sheriff's Department can use several methods to reduce the time inmates spend in jail and alleviate overcrowding. In addition to crediting time for good behavior, the sheriff can shave off 10 percent or more of a sentence under two court orders imposed after lawsuits were filed more than a decade ago.

Generally speaking, a man sentenced to a year in jail typically would serve about six months, authorities said. The term could be shorter for women.
Judges understand the challenges sheriffs face, but some say they are frustrated that their sentences can be altered drastically. The judges say they typically don't know perpetrators are out until someone – often the victim – sees them on the street.

Regardless of the sentence, the sheriff determines where defendants serve their time.

The Sheriff's Department's detention services bureau, said San Diego's jail population overall exceeds the bed capacity allowed by the state by 7 percent.

Based on the latest numbers, four of seven local jails are over capacity. The worst is the Las Colinas Detention Facility in Santee, where the female inmate population has reached 144 percent of the state-rated cap.

State law allows the Sheriff's Department to determine where defendants sentenced to county jail – not prison – will be housed. In San Diego County, the Probation Department administers the Electronic Surveillance Program, also known as house arrest or home detention, an alternative to jail.

But judges still have their say.

The law allows judges, during sentencing, to “restrict or deny” a defendant's option to be in a home-detention program, which is what the judge in the Hilton case did when he ordered her to serve 45 days in jail for violating probation on a reckless-driving conviction.

Hilton was locked up for only three days before Sheriff Lee Baca placed her under house arrest at her Hollywood Hills home. Baca said the move was prompted by Hilton's medical condition, which he didn't disclose.

Sauer, who was outraged by Hilton's release, ordered her back to court and then back to jail.

“I at no time condoned the actions of the sheriff and at no time told him I approved the action,” the judge said at the time. “At no time did I approve the defendant being released from custody to her home on Kings Road.”

Although Hilton protested, she said she won't appeal.

A similar situation happened last month in San Diego, when a Superior Court judge ordered that a Poway man who had been placed on home detention be sent back to jail.

In February, the Judge sentenced the man to a year in jail for stealing bathing-suit photos of his fiancee's sister and posting them on pornographic Web sites. When the victim learned he was out of jail, monitored by an electronic ankle bracelet, she alerted prosecutors.

The controversy over the Hilton case – whether she got special treatment or harsher treatment – has judges and the Sheriff's Department doing some self-examination.

Most judges do not view home detention as the equivalent of custody as it does not punish in the same way.

The Sheriff has to manage its population in accordance with other court orders. If every judge made that kind of order like Judge Sauer's, San Diego County's jails would probably be over populated very quickly.

The DUI suspect, a parolee, admitted, "That's the ID. I use it to go to clubs."

Turkus wobbled on his feet and his breath smelled of an alcoholic beverage, cops allege. Police also found an empty Bud Light can in the car.

He refused to take a blood alcohol test, according to the DUI cops.

Turkus was released on parole in February, after spending seven months in state prison for two burglary convictions. He had initially been sentenced to two to six years in prison.

This time around, he's charged with drunken driving and false personation.

MORE DWI ARRESTS

Cops say an Eltingville man was drunk and high on drugs when he got into a car crash as he left the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge early Wednesday morning.

Robert Dente, 42, of the 100 block of Wainwright Avenue, had a crack pipe and a foil wrapper with white residue in his car when police found him at 2:50 a.m., according to court papers.

"I'm on morphine," Dente told cops, court papers allege. He refused to take a blood alcohol test, cops allege.

He was charged with drunken and impaired driving, and misdemeanor drug possession.

Police also arrested Robert J. Donovan, 42, of New Jersey, on the West Shore Expressway near Victory Boulevard yesterday, charging him with drunken driving after his blood alcohol level measured .116 percent, cops said. The legal limit is .08 percent.

SUV driver in school bus collision faces DWI charge
San Diego DWI Attorney / San Diego California drunk driving lawyer news :


June 15, 2007

3 school children were taken to hospitals today after an 18-year-old driver crashed head-on into a school bus this morning.

Syracuse NY police say Ulysee Mallory ran off after the 2005 Mercury Mountaineer he was driving struck the bus at about 8 am.

Police say Mallory is facing charges of driving while intoxicated ( DWI ) or drunk driving, aggravated unlicensed operation and leaving the scene of a personal injury accident.

Officers found him later at a nearby house: You can run but you can't hide.

The bus driver, April Stanton, was not injured.

The bus was traveling south on Pine Street when Mallory apparently turned onto Pine off East Genesee Street and rammed the bus.

Three children -- two 7-year-olds and a 10-year-old -- were taken to hospitals as a precaution.

Neither driver reported any injuries.

DUI news / Drunk Driving info:

June 15, 2007

A person who is convicted or pleads guilty to DUI and having caused the death of another must pay $150,000.00 to the dead person's estate, under Iowa law.

After a sixty-two year old man was struck and killed by a car another man was arrested and charged with DUI / OWI Varell Wiley of West Des Moines was charged with driving the car that allegedly struck and killed Kerry Tucker.

A West Des Moines man is facing DUI charges in connection with a deadly hit-and-run accident, and police say more charges are likely. Sixty-two-year-old Kerry Tucker was struck and killed near the intersection of 63rd Street and Clark Wednesday night.

Police found a car with a shattered windshield just a few blocks away. Fifty-one-year-old Varell Wiley of West Des Moines was behind the wheel. He's been charged with OWI. Police are hoping evidence from Wiley's car windshield will prove he hit Tucker.

A tougher sentence was handed down for Richard Peterson of Colorado Springs, who injured Swift's parents in a 2003 DUI collision. The judge threw out a deal that would have offered him 52 months’ probation and instead sentenced him to a year in prison.

The accident happened on Sept. 26, 2003. According to reports, Peterson tried to pass several cars at once on U.S. Highway 400 and ran head-on into a car driven by Robert and Phyllis Aldrich, Swift’s parents. Phyllis Aldrich received a head injury and died a year and a half later after it worsened into progressive dementia. Robert Aldrich was badly injured and is still unable to get around easily due to the damage to his legs.

Peterson was 60 at the time of the accident. Peterson had seven instances of DUI.

Calififornia drunk driving attorney / San Diego California DUI lawyer news:

06/15/2007

Senate President James Metzen on Thursday pleaded guilty to drunken driving / DUI in Minnesota.


For his DUI convicdtion, Metzen, will serve one year of probation, 20 hours of community service and pay a $300 fine plus a $77 surcharge. He also will comply with the recommendations of a physiological and behavioral assessment.

After presiding over the last Senate session of the year on May 21, Metzen went out for drinks with colleagues. He had three to four mixed drinks, according to his lawyer.

A few hours later, Metzen was spotted weaving through lanes in South St. Paul and was stopped by South St. Paul police at 2:13 a.m. May 22. He blew 0.15 percent on a Breathalyzer test at 3:30 a.m. A later blood test found that his blood-alcohol level was likely 0.10 percent at the time of his arrest, said Rogosheske.

The legal threshold for driving while intoxicated is 0.08 percent.

The senator's driver's license was suspended when he was arrested. After 15 days, he was permitted a limited license that allows him to drive eight to 10 hours a day, six
days a week. Within about a month, his driving privileges will expand further.

Jo Baker, Minnesota victim impact panel coordinator for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, sat in on the Metzen hearing and suggested the senator was "getting off a little easy."

"This is a gentleman who should have known better," said Baker, whose son was killed by a drunken driver in Arizona 18 years ago. She said she attends most court appearances for drunken drivers in Dakota County in cases where the defendant is accused of seriously hurting or killing someone, was a repeat offender or, as in Metzen's case, was particularly prominent.

June 15, 2007

California DUI Lawyer / San Diego California Drunk Driving news :


Arizona's House voted to repeal a new requirement forcing first-time DUI offenders to install breath-testing ignition interlocks on their vehicles.

The new DUI interlock requirement, signed into law nearly a month ago, hasn't started.

State law now requires repeat drunken drivers or those convicted of extreme or aggravated DUI to use interlocks when their driving privileges are restored. The devices won't allow a vehicle to start if the person's alcohol content is above a certain limit.
Some lawmakers said the interlock requirement for first-time DUI offenders needs to be removed because the financial penalties and embarrassment of a drunken driving conviction are probably enough to prevent them from making the mistake again. The new law would require the devices for at least a year after drivers get back their driving privileges.
"I don't think there's anybody in this body that wants to go soft on DUI crimes or reward people that are convicted of the crime, but I think many of us believe that we need the proper punishment to fit the crime," said Democratic Rep. Chad Campbell of Phoenix, who voted for dumping the new requirement.
The 54-1 vote by the House sends the bill to the Senate.
The DUI sentencing bill, signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, would make Arizona the only state besides New Mexico to have an interlock requirement for first-time DUI offenders. California has their own possibilities for an IID if a first-time DUI.

DUI charges after fatal wreck this morning
June 15, 2007

A driver died early today after being struck from behind by a DUI / DWI driver, state police said today in Portsmouth.

A collision occurred around 2:15 a.m. on Interstate 264 near the Greenwood Avenue exit. Jason Cooper was driving west in a 2000 Ford Expedition when he was hit by a speeding 2002 Nissan Maxima and propelled into a guardrail. State police spokesman Sgt. D.S. Carr said Cooper, 48, was not wearing a seat belt and was ejected from his car and died at the scene.

Carr said that Tucker R. Havel, 26, of Suffolk has been charged with DUI.

According to state police DUI reports, Havel struck the Expedition from behind and caused it to slam into a guardrail. The Expedition spun around and struck the guardrail again as Cooper was ejected. Carr said Havel continued up the road about a quarter-mile before he hit a guardrail at the Greenwood exit.

Carr said Havel's car caught fire, but witnesses arrived at the scene and helped him out of the car. Havel was not injured.



A DUI Hit-And-Run Sends 1 To Hospital

June 15, 2007


One man was badly hurt in what state police said was a DUI hit-and-run on the outbound side of the Parkway East, MONROEVILLE, Pa.

A state trooper found Mitchell J. Cassata lying in the right lane at about 10:20 p.m. Thursday, approximately one mile before the Monroeville exit.

Cassata, 29, of Pittsburgh, was taken to Allegheny General Hospital in critical condition. Doctors performed surgery on him early Friday morning.

Witnesses told police that a light-colored pickup truck had struck the man and left the area. A Penn Township police officer pulled over a truck matching the witness description on Sandy Creek Road in Harrison City, Westmoreland County.

The DUI driver was arrested and charged with aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI and accidents involving death or personal injury. He was held at the County Jail.

COLUMBIA, SC - A bill Friday aimed at cracking down on youths' access to alcohol, was signed. The General Assembly is asked to toughen South Carolina's DUI laws.

Governor Sanford's office said the signed bill increases fines and penalties for underage-drinking offenses, and will make it easier for police to find out who bought kegs at parties where underage drinking occurred, will allow minors to help police by participating in stings of bars and convenience stores, and requires repeat DUI offenders to pay for an ignition interlock device system to be installed in their cars.

However, the bill "does nothing to address the state's real problem with DUI, a loophole-ridden DUI law."

"Let's be very clear - there's much more work to be done if we're going to stop the carnage that occurs on our state's roads because of our anemic DUI laws," Gov. Sanford said. "South Carolina consistently ranks near the top in the nation for DUI deaths, and it's largely because of a DUI law that, as one solicitor has said, is tougher to prosecute than a death penalty case. The tragic reality is that there are some in the legislature who profit from the current loopholes in the system, which is why the Senate needs to follow the House's lead quickly next year in passing a bill that prevents so many from being killed on South Carolina's roads."

From 2004-2006 in SC, there were more than 1,500 crashes involving underage driver under the influence, resulting in 1,200 injuries and 150 fatalities. One alcohol-related death occurs on our nation's roads every 31 minutes, and one alcohol-related injury occurs every two minutes, according to Sanford. South Carolina ranked 7th in 2005 in vehicle deaths per 100,000 miles driven, with alcohol being a significant factor in these deaths. South Carolina is 9th in the country for the percentage of drunk drivers in fatal crashes. 40% of repeat DUI offenders in South Carolina plead guilty to lesser offenses, said the Governor.

San Diego DUI Attorney / San Diego Drunk Driving Lawyer news -

MADD expanding of DUI interlock program

CHARLESTON, W.Va. —

All convicted DUI drivers must have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehcile so an instant blood alcohol content check is made in West Virginia.

The idea is proposed & discussed by a special panel assembled by the state chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in work on possible legislation by Judiciary Subcommittee C.

“We have some limited interlock right now,” said MADD’s executive director, Donna Hawkins, “but there is some movement across the country to expand that.

“Whether we’ll do that or not, I don’t know.”

Steve Dale, the assistant commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles, says the intent of interlock is to enable convicted motorists to regain their licenses, and is voluntary on the first offense.

“The reason why it’s mandatory on a second offense is because it’s part of the federal repeat offenders law that was passed two years ago,” Dale explained Thursday.

Under the state’s program, a DUI - convicted motorist reports to one of four locations while a third-party vendor installs the device.

“You have to blow into the device before the car will start,” Dale said.

“And it will, at various times, ask you for a test at random. The car won’t start at all if you blow a high BAC.”

One popular misconception is that a vehicle will stop automatically as soon as a high BAC is recorded. Actually, the driver is alerted by flashing lights.

“When you blow into the device while driving, it doesn’t shut the engine off immediately,” Dale said. “There is a delay built into it.”

An offender bears the entire cost, which runs about $65 monthly in addition to the $50 installation fee.

“Normally, we have about 1,000 people on the program at any one time,” Dale said.

“It’s really very technologically advanced. Our staff here in Charleston can download the activity report from each machine and be able to determine how many times an attempt was made to start a car and you blew an alcohol reading and attempted to circumvent the system.”

Each month, a driver convicted of DUI using interlock must have the device checked out and tuned up.

DUI news / Drunk Driving update:

There's nothing wrong with drinking for most people, there's nothing wrong with driving. They need to not be done at the same time, according to Wyoming officials.

New Wyoming laws making it illegal to have open containers of alcohol in moving vehicles and imposing tougher penalties on drunken drivers go into effect July first.

Officials say they expect the laws will reduce highway deaths in the state, but some say even more needs to be done to address drunken driving here.

Lt. Col. Jess Oyler, with the Wyoming Highway Patrol in Cheyenne, said his agency handled 59 crashes involving drugs or alcohol last year. Those crashes resulted in 66 deaths, of which 61 were people not wearing seat belts. He said the patrol issued 1,342 citations for driving under the influence last year.

"Often times, if there's alcohol involvement during a fatality, we see open containers sometimes at the scene of a crash," Oyler said. "Anything we can do to enhance the DUI laws to aid enforcement and provide a safer environment for highway safety, I support 100 percent." Sen. Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, had sponsored bills seeking to ban open containers of alcohol in moving vehicles in the state for several years before finally seeing the legislation pass this spring.

"It's going to mean that we're going to see a decrease, hopefully, in alcohol-related deaths on the road," Ross said of the open-container ban.

Although some Wyoming municipalities already had outlawed open containers of alcohol by ordinance, Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank said Ross's bill is an important step for the state.

"The open container was probably the big one, and that's just a long time coming," Crank said. "Tony Ross fought for years to get that passed, and it's a good addition to Wyoming law."

"If you can drive around with an open container, I think it just increases the number of people who are going to be over the legal limit," Crank said.

Ross also authored the law that goes into effect July 1 requiring jail terms of up to one year on a first conviction of driving under the influence with a child passenger. A second conviction could mean up to five years in prison.

"The child endangerment bill was and is a voice for those people who don't have a voice," Ross said. "We're talking about young children who are put into a vehicle and really don't have a say about that."

Ross said the child endangerment bill also can allow for intervention by the state Department of Family Services to help families troubled by alcoholism.

Another law hitting the books July 1 authorizes felony charges for drunken drivers who severely injure someone in a crash. Sen. John Hines, R-Gillette, sponsored that legislation this spring.

"Previously it was just a misdemeanor, regardless of how serious the injuries were,"