San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers have been the California's best. Especially when it comes to the San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving criminal cases.

The way San Diego DUI lawyers handle the San Diego DUI cases and drive through with San Diego DUI success. San Diego County DUI Law Center's San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is the best for San Diego DUI criminal & San Diego DMV cases and always available for a free online consulting session at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net.

You can check for San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller's availability and complete free San Diego DUI evaluation form online at www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/survey beforehand. San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is a noble proffession and San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller does his best at San Diego DUI / DMV defense.

San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving attorney info

If drinking was done responsibly, many fatal DUI / Drunk Driving accidents could be avoided. However, it is the irresponsible people who make it completely unsafe to lower the drinking age to 18 in Vermont. This is because if the age is lowered there, it will be only a matter of time before it spreads to the other 49 states.

In the U.S. alone, about 18,000 people die in DUI / Drunk Driving / alcohol-related crashes every year. That's 18,000 more people in our world gone because of alcohol in DUI / Drunk Driving accidents. Nearly 41 percent of all crashes are DUI / Drunk Driving / alcohol-related. What a horribly high number. Lowering the drinking age is only going to add to this growing DUI / Drunk Driving problem.

In 1985 when the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 in Vermont, DUI / Drunk Driving / alcohol-related crashes dropped 40 percent. Some question - if there were so many fewer crashes when the age is 21, why would we want to bring it back down? So the number of DUI / Drunk Driving / alcohol-related crashes will go back up again?

There are already so many underage students who drink. Doing it while underage is even worse.

It is true that not all people DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI - drive while intoxicated — many don't. However, many do drive while drunk. What can we do to help stop minors from drinking? DUI / Drunk Driving law enforcement say they do their best.

DUI / Drunk Driving patrolling is one way we can help reduce underage drinking. D.A.R.E., or Drug Abuse Resistance Education, is another DUI / Drunk Driving approach. Teens who don't have anything to do tend to be the ones who drink. Keeping active and involved is one way for students to keep themselves from getting involved in DUI / Drunk Driving / underage drinking. Some think it's so cool, but it really isn't.

Lowering the drinking age wouldn't be such a bad thing if everyone in the U.S actually learned about the dangers of drinking before they were allowed to go out and get drunk. This is surely not a foolproof plan, however it might get people thinking more about "what if it does happen to me."

Another idea would be to start a D.A.R.E.-type program for DUI / Drunk Driving adults.

Lowering the drinking age is not the best idea because a lot of the times students need to have more time to mature.

DUI / Drunk Driving lawyers are looking at this development. www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net

San Diego DUI criminal lawyers news

One of the coolest guys on the planet, Warren Moon appeared today at a pretrial hearing in his DUI / driving-under-the-influence case, which is scheduled for a DUI jury trial in June.

A DUI motion hearing is scheduled June 10, which is before a DUI trial would begin. Moon was arrested by Medina police for DUI on Dec. 28 after he refused a DUI field sobriety and DUI breath test, all within his usual citizen rights to do so.

Moon, a Hall of Fame quarterback and member of the Seahawks radio broadcast team, pleaded not guilty to DUI - driving under the influence in February. The DUI case is being heard at Kirkland Municipal Court.

Moon has a sentence review hearing scheduled later to review his compliance with a negligent-driving sentence imposed in August 2007. The question of Moon's compliance relates to his refusal to take a DUI field-sobriety test before his December arrest and whether that violated the terms of his sentence from the previous case. DUI criminal defense attorneys contend it did not.

dui lawyer news

It’s obvious that underage drinking offenses are no small matter, but a recent community meeting emphasized the severity of this illegal activity.

On March 5, Police Sgt. Timothy Beveridge spoke to Take It Back!, a forum on the consequences of underage alcohol abuse sponsored by youth group Lake Erie Pride. Beveridge opened eyes to the strict guidelines for enforcement of liquor laws.

Spring is coming, but the snowball effect of underage drinking violations runs year-round. First, did you know that there is a separate blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for minors? Adults are considered too drunk to drive at .08B AC; teens, however, face charges at .02 BAC — for most of us, that’s the equivalent of only one drink.

In addition, teens caught driving over the adult limit are faced with two charges of D.U.I., one adult and one adolescent offense.

Here’s another fact: anyone caught providing alcohol to minors is charged, despite their age. Theoretically, then, a 17-year-old hosting a party can be charged for giving a drink to someone aged 19 or 20! Fines run at $1,000 for the first person they serve, and $2,500 for any others under 21 served.

Judges are required to punish every offender to the full extent; you cannot have fines reduced or dismissed, and you can not bargain for a lesser punishment.

Teen shares addiction struggle

He steps up to the podium, clearly rattled. “Joe” nervously discusses the story of his life, the story of his abuse. The final speaker of the night at Take It Back! was clean-cut and devoid of what some might define as typical traits of an addict.

“Joe,” however, didn’t divulge his real name for privacy reasons. Nearly half of his life has been spent under the control of drugs and alcohol, and only recently has he come to terms with who he is.

When he was 10, Joe’s sister died of leukemia. Most people can’t imagine the situation Joe faced, though it can be said that the resulting stress landed him in a very dark place, one that couldn’t be cleared by counseling or parental intervention.

Joe finally dropped out of school and ran into trouble with the law. He was arrested a number of times for minor offenses, and later committed to a shortlived stint in rehab. After a 2006 arrest, Joe was sentenced to a 90-day stay in a rehab facility and, luckily for him, the second time was a charm.

Now, at 18, Joe has stood before a crowd of strangers and talked of his daily struggle to stay sober. “The temptation is still there,” he says. His willpower’s winning, though, and Joe maintains his sobriety by attending daily meetings and working towards his high school diploma. One day at a time, one moment at a time, he’s rebuilding his life.
\
DUI lawyers tell those under 21 not to drink alcohol.

DUI attorney news

A long struggle to strengthen the state's drunken driving law could come to an end this week. A conference committee trying to work out differences between the House and Senate versions of the new law is scheduled to meet Wednesday morning, and Rep. Scott Talley believes the six-member panel could finish then.

The committee - Talley and fellow Reps. Murrell Smith and David Weeks, and Sens. Larry Martin, Jake Knotts and Brad Hutto - smoothed over a few small wrinkles in its first meeting last week. But the members left the bigger issues - stiff penalties for first-time offenders, for drivers with higher blood-alcohol levels and for drivers who refuse to take a breath test - for another day.

Seventh Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy attended Thursday's meeting and said he was "struck by the collegiality" of the committee members. But he said he's not convinced a compromise will be reached quickly.

"The tone and tenor of the meeting would make anyone optimistic," Gowdy said. "But the reality is that some of the positions are so different that I think reconciliation is going to be difficult."

The House passed its version of the bill last year and included graduated penalties based on the level of intoxication. The more severe penalties are tied to three levels of intoxication - .08 to .1, .1 to .16, and .16 and above.

Each level carries a fine and jail time - but in each case community service can be ordered in place of a jail sentence on first or second offense.

The bill also simplifies the process for law enforcement officers to arrest suspected drunk drivers by dropping the requirement that law enforcement officers must advise suspected drunken drivers of their Miranda rights more than once and changing the time when video recording is required to begin.

The version the Senate approved last month stripped away the tiered penalties for first-time offenders and reduced the penalty for refusing to take a breath test. The House refused to go along with those changes, creating the need for the conference committee.

"Our argument is if we're going to get serious about this, then the very first offense needs to be strongly dealt with, and repeat offenders are shown no mercy when it comes to this crime," Talley said.

Gov. Mark Sanford agrees with Talley. Sanford has fought to improve the law since taking office in 2003.

"

San Diego DUI attorney news

New Jersey's High Court lacks an understanding of how dangerous it is to put our digital technology in the hands of the DUI manufacturers who built the Draeger Alcotest 7110 blood-alcohol reader. With no independent testing of the DUI software, our rights to accuracy will be lost in the quest for money.

The DUI court rejected the special master's recommendation that the machine be fitted with a breath temperature sensor to be certain the DUI readings are correct. Higher breath temperatures give higher DUI blood-alcohol readings. That addition would cost $1,300 per machine and $1,600 to retrofit existing DUI machines, a small price to pay for accuracy.

The impact of a DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI - driving while intoxicated charge on an individual's life in practical and financial terms is incredible. The state should have the best, most accurate DUI machine available to determine guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer news



"But," he said, "if you get caught six times with a DUI, you are not a felon."

Georgia remains one of the few states without a felony DUI statute. House Bill 336, sponsored by state Rep. Kevin Levitas (D-Atlanta), would change that.

It creates a felony-level DUI for repeat offenders who rack up four convictions within 10 years and mandates that repeat offenders serve at least 90 days in jail. Current law treats a fourth DUI as a misdemeanor.

As a former DUIprosecutor, Levitas says he worried more about the dangers to the general public posed by DUI drunken drivers than by murderers. "Sadly, in murders the people often knew each other, but there is a randomness to a DUI where a car suddenly comes across the lane of a highway and hits someone going to church or school."

Levitas cites research that on average, people drive drunk 87 times before being caught in a DUI. "It's appropriate for the fourth conviction to be a felony," he says.

HB 336 not only increases fines and jail time, it requires a DUIclinical evaluation and any necessary treatment upon a first DUIconviction, which DUIlaw does not now demand.

"My goal is that no one ever gets to a fourth offense," says Levitas. "But after three times where you have been convicted and received treatment and evaluation, if there is a fourth time, we have to have public safety foremost in our minds."

The DUI legislation is endorsed by the Governor's Office of Highway Safety and the state District Attorney's Association. No DUI defense organization reported.

San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney news

Londoners were set to take part last night in a bid to set a record for the world's largest pub crawl, despite MADD Canada concerns, according to San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers.

A Halifax group had organized "Canada's biggest party" and expected about 4,800 people in Ottawa, Halifax, St. John's, N.L., and London to take part, per San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney sources.

Pauline Newton of the London chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving was stunned when she learned of the event, claim San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorneys.

"I think it's the most irresponsible thing I've ever seen," she said. "As far as I'm concerned, it's a recipe for disaster "

A website for the registration event -- $25 a person -- said 2,500 London party-goers would be "unleashed onto the downtown core, all at the same time, for one great cause and one (heck of) a good time," with 10 stops, San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers understand.

Organizer Jonathan DeYoung said participants must visit 10 bars and order one drink at each, but drinks needn't be alcoholic, stress San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorneys.

"There's no binge drinking aspect whatsoever. It's a Guinness World Record attempt . . . "

The English hold the record -- 2,278 people visited 18 London pubs on Oct. 14, 2006, San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers recall.

ARE YOU CRIMINALLY INADMISSIBLE TO CANADA ?
Security and enforcement at the Canada-United States border has heightened in recent years. For this reason, more U.S. citizens with past criminal charges or convictions are refused entry into Canada . Canadians with past criminal charges or convictions seeking entry into the U.S. are denied entry as well. In some cases, Canadian immigration officers at ports of entry can allow a person with a criminal record into Canada ; however, approval cannot be guaranteed, and a processing fee must be paid.

Almost all convictions (including DUI, DWI, reckless driving, negligent driving, misdemeanour drug possession, all felonies, domestic violence (assault IV), shoplifting, theft, etc) make a person inadmissible to Canada , regardless of how long ago they occurred. For this reason, it is not recommended that persons with past convictions attempt to enter Canada without first obtaining necessary documents. It is always the final decision of officers at ports of entry to decide whether a person is allowed into Canada .

There are several ways individuals can overcome criminal inadmissibility:

deemed rehabilitation at a Canadian port of entry
approval of rehabilitation through a Canadian Consulate in the United States
temporary resident permit through a Canadian Consulate in the United States
ARE YOU DEEMED REHABILITATED?
Persons are eligible to apply for deemed rehabilitation at a port of entry if the following are true:

There was only one conviction in total or one criminal act
At least ten years have elapsed since all of the sentences for the conviction were completed (payment of all fees, jail time completed, restitution paid, etc.)
The conviction would not be considered serious criminality in Canada (most felony convictions in the United States are considered serious criminality in Canada )
The conviction did not involve any serious property damage, physical harm to any person, or any type of weapon
Deemed rehabilitation is determined at Canadian ports of entry. Please be advised that requesting deemed rehabilitation does not guarantee that the request will be approved. Should a person wish to be considered for deemed rehabilitation, the following documents may be brought to a port of entry during regular business hours (Monday - Friday between 8 am and 5 pm ):

a completed application form [http://www.cic. gc.ca/english/ applications/ rehabil.html]
United States passport or birth certificate plus photo identification
a copy of court documents for each conviction, and proof that all sentences were completed
a recent FBI criminal record check [http://travel. state.gov/ travel/tips/ emergencies/ emergencies_ 1201.html]
recent police certificates [http://www.dfait- maeci.gc. ca/can-am/ detroit/visas/ police_certifica te-en.asp ] from the state where the conviction(s) occurred and from any state where a person has lived for six (6) months or longer in the last 10 years
If you are not certain that you are deemed rehabilitated or would prefer to know whether you are criminally inadmissible before your planned trip to Canada , you may apply for rehabilitation at the office in Detroit and submit a non-refundable processing fee. If you meet the requirements for deemed rehabilitation, they will send you a letter to that effect. If you do not, they will process your application for approval of rehabilitation [http://www.dfait- maeci.gc. ca/can-am/ detroit/pdf/ IMM%201444e% 20.pdf]. You must apply well in advance of your trip as routine applications can take six months or more to process.

WERE YOU CONVICTED AS A JUVENILE?
In Canada , a juvenile offender is someone who is 12 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age. If you were convicted in a juvenile court for an act committed when you were less than 18 years of age, it is possible that you are not criminally inadmissible.

DO YOU HAVE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS IN CANADA ?
If you have one or more criminal convictions in Canada , you must seek a pardon from the National Parole Board of Canada before you will be admissible to Canada . Do not complete the application form available on this website. You can request a guide on obtaining a pardon or any additional information from the following address:

Clemency and Pardons Division, National Parole Board
410 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa , Ontario , Canada
K1A 0R1

Telephone: 1-800-874-2652
(Callers from Canada and the United States only)
Fax: 1-613-941-4981

Web: http://www.npb- cnlc.gc.ca
(The guide, which contains the application form, can be downloaded from this site)

If you are traveling to Canada , carry a copy of the pardon with you.

NOTE: If you have had only one or two summary convictions in Canada , you may be deemed rehabilitated and no longer inadmissible to Canada if:

5 years have passed since the sentence imposed was served or to be served
you have had no subsequent convictions and
you have not been refused a pardon
IS YOUR FOREIGN PARDON RECOGNIZED IN CANADA ?
If you received a pardon or expungement for your conviction in a country other than Canada , it is possible that you are no longer inadmissible to Canada . You should carry the pardon or expungement documents with you when you seek entry into Canada as it is your responsibility to demonstrate to the officer at the Port of Entry that all of your convictions have been expunged or pardoned.

ARE YOU ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR REHABILITATION?
You may apply for rehabilitation if at least five years have passed since the completion of the sentence imposed for your crime. For example, if you were convicted of driving under the influence, it must be at least five years since your full driving privileges were restored.

You may apply for rehabilitation at the office in Detroit . You must apply well in advance of your planned trip to Canada , as routine applications can take six months or more to process. Complex, non-routine applications can take two years or more to process. In evaluating the application, we will look for evidence that you have taken steps to change your behavior and will no longer pose a potential danger to Canadians.

HOW TO APPLY FOR REHABILTATION


[http://www.dfait- maeci.gc. ca/can-am/ detroit/right_ nav/areyoucrimin allyinadmissible tocanada- en.asp]

WHAT IS A TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT?
If you are not deemed rehabilitated, or you are not yet eligible for rehabilitation, or you are not eligible for a pardon in Canada , you may apply for a temporary resident permit. If justified by compelling circumstances, foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada , including persons with one or more criminal convictions, may be issued a temporary resident permit allowing them to enter or remain in Canada .

You must apply well in advance of your planned trip to Canada , as routine applications can take up to six months to process. If you have genuine, compelling reasons to enter Canada within a shorter time frame, please enclose a letter which explains your reasons in detail and states the date by which you need to enter Canada . You must also provide evidence to support your need to enter Canada (e.g. a letter from your employer stating how long you have been employed and describing your job and your reason for needing to go to Canada ). In evaluating your application, we will weigh your reasons for seeking entry against the potential risk to Canadians.

If you are not sure of the steps to follow in your specific circumstances, you may send us an enquiry by email, fax or mail [http://www.dfait- maeci.gc. ca/can-am/ detroit/rightnav /address_ hours-en. asp] and we will advise you further.

HOW TO APPLY FOR A TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT


[http://www.dfait- maeci.gc. ca/can-am/ detroit/right_ nav/areyoucrimin allyinadmissible tocanada- en.asp]

APPLYING IN DETROIT
Please read the following instructions carefully before you complete the application form:

You should submit your application by mail [http://www. dfait-maeci. gc.ca/can- am/detroit/ rightnav/ address_hours- en.asp], see mail procedures [http://www. dfait-maeci. gc.ca/can- am/detroit/ rightnav/ address_hours- en.asp]
Your application is subject to a NON-REFUNDABLE processing fee [http://www.dfait- maeci.gc. ca/can-am/ detroit/right_ nav/areyoucrimin allyinadmissible tocanada- en.asp]. If your application is refused, the fee will not be refunded.
The Immigration Section offers service in both of Canada 's official languages: English and French. Documents in languages other than English or French must be accompanied by a certified translation.
If a personal interview is required, you will be notified in writing of the date and time of the interview.
In order to determine inadmissibility, foreign convictions, acts, or omissions will be equated to Canadian law as if they occurred in Canada .
You are required to provide us with complete details of charges, convictions, court dispositions, pardons, photocopies of applicable sections of foreign law(s), court proceedings and all other required documents that are listed on the website.
An officer will determine whether or not you are inadmissible to Canada .
You will be advised in writing of our final decision.
NOTE: Normal processing time can be 6 months or more for routine cases. Complex, non-routine cases can take two years or more to process.
FEES
You must submit the processing fee with your application. If it is determined that you are inadmissible for serious criminality, you will be asked to pay the higher processing fee. Please check the website regarding the amount of the processing fee that needs to be paid.

San Diego DUI lawyer news

Responding to calls for tougher highway safety laws, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Friday that Vermont should consider lowering the blood-alcohol threshold for a person charged with drunk driving, DUI lawyers hear.

Rep. Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, said he would like lawmakers to begin discussing lowering the legal limit from .08 percent blood-alcohol concentration to .05 percent, making Vermont the state with the lowest threshold in the country. Right now, every state has a .08 percent limit. With just more than a month expected to remain in the legislative session, Lippert said he knows that notion won't pass now. But he said he wanted to start that conversation this year with an eye toward taking a serious look at the proposal in the next biennium, which begins next January, DUI lawyers are told.

"We've already seen the legal limit change several times in our lifetime," Lippert said Friday, after the Judiciary Committee spent hours examining drunk driving statistics prepared by the state. "If we changed it to .05, it would send a very serious message that impaired driving is not tolerated on Vermont roads."

That was just one of the ideas on the table for the Judiciary Committee as it began a long look at more than a half dozen bills dealing with intoxicated driving and highway safety. Lawmakers are shining a spotlight on these issues just days after more than 200 people crowded into the Statehouse, urging the state to get tougher on drunk drivers, DUI attorneys report.

Tragedy was the catalyst for Tuesday's anti-drunk driving rally. Last year, 18-year-old Nick Fournier was killed on Interstate 89 when the car he was a passenger in was struck by a vehicle driven by Shawn Burritt, 32, of Jericho, DUI attorneys report.

Burritt, who was driving the wrong way down the highway and told police he had consumed eight or nine beers at a bar earlier, is a repeat offender – he had three previous convictions for driving under the influence and his license to drive had been suspended for the rest of his life, DUI attorneys report.

Lawmakers also had serous questions Friday about why Burritt, who was pulled over months before the fatal car accident for driving with a suspended license, was still out on the streets despite being in violation of his probation, DUI attorneys report.

Vermont Corrections Commissioner Robert Hofmann, who was present that morning to discuss the financial impact on state prisons under some of the proposed DUI law reforms, said he "didn't want to finger-point," but that a breakdown in communication among local police and prosecutors was likely to blame, DUI attorneys report.

Rep. Willem Jewett, D-Ripton, called that communications breakdown a "failure of the system."

"We would normally be advised of that," Hofmann said. "But the fact remains that this person … I don't want to point fingers, but this young man died because this guy drank too much alcohol and got behind the wheel of a car."

Tougher DUI laws would also mean higher corrections' costs for Vermont. Under the toughest DUI changes proposed — which range from increased criminal penalties for repeat offenders and setting up new administrative roadblocks via the vehicle registration process – Vermont's Corrections budget would increase by nearly $2.3 million, DUI attorneys said.

For example, if there was a mandatory six-month jail sentence for third drunk driving convictions, it would cost the state more than $2.2 million for the additional 105 new prison beds required, DUI attorneys report.

Hofmann said he understands the urge to get tougher on drunk driving, DUI attorneys report.

"As much as sex offenders grab the headlines, we are not as much at risk from them as the thousands of people who get in a car and drive drunk," DUI attorneys reported.

According to information from the Vermont Governor's Highway Safety Office, there were 23 alcohol-related highway deaths in the state last year. Slightly more than 3,900 people were charged with drunk driving in the state in 2006, DUI attorneys report.

Lippert said he first started thinking about a lower DUI threshold 10 years ago when lawmakers were revising the criminal statutes. He even had a one-line pitch for the idea: ".05 by 2005." He joked Friday that maybe it could be updated to "0.5 by '010."

Another option to reduce drunk driving in Vermont floated by Lippert on Friday was targeted more at habitual offenders – like the man who killed Fournier last year. He suggested that installing ignition interlock devices in the vehicles of people who, for example, are convicted of their third or more DUI charge, DUI attorneys report.

These devices are like breathalyzers on the dashboard of cars. If the person in the driver's seat has too much alcohol in their blood, the car won't start. New Mexico mandated such devices for first time offenders and many other states are also considering that measure, DUI attorneys report.

Lippert said former Middlebury College President John McCardell, who has launched an effort to reduce the drinking age from 21 to 18, suggested the ignition locks as an idea in a recent letter to the committee, DUI attorneys are told.

DUI criminal defense lawyer news

A Downey man who was driving under the influence of marijuana and alcohol when he killed two people in a high-speed crash was sentenced Friday to 15 years to life in prison, DUI criminal defense lawyers learned.

Jon David Tafoya, 28, was convicted of murder Jan. 24 in the Mission Viejo crash on April 5, 2005, according to DUI criminal defense lawyers.

Tafoya had been attempting to evade Orange County sheriff's deputies as they tried to pull him over for suspected California DUI - drunk driving after leaving Tortilla Flats at Lake Mission Viejo, per DUI criminal defense attorneys. He was driving a Chevrolet pickup about 90 mph up a hill on the wrong side of the road when he crashed head-on into a Saturn coupe, killing the driver, Eusebio Flores, 40, and his passenger, Melody Woodbridge, 22, DUI criminal defense attorneys are told.

San Diego DUI lawyer news

In a restaurant with her 4-year-old boy, a woman seemed groggy as she was drinking a mimosa. Then the woman ordered a glass of white wine, then another. She was so out of it, the businessman would later write in a statement to DUI police, that she looked ready to fall asleep at the table.

When the woman paid her bill and left the restaurant, the businessman was right behind her, cell phone in hand. When she ran a stop sign in the parking lot, he called the police.

By the time the cops showed up a few minutes later, the woman already had parked at the Chandler Mall, less than a mile from Mimi's. She was buying bath salts when the businessman pointed her out to the cops.

Thanks to the businessman's intervention, Shannon Wilcutt was eventually charged with three felony counts: a DUI above 0.08, a DUI with a child under 15 in the car, and drug possession.

Justice served, right?

Hardly.

Turns out, those glasses of white wine were actually water. Wilcutt was groggy because she'd just had dental surgery. She'd thought a mimosa might be soothing, but when it stung her sutures, she pushed it away half-finished.

The proof is in the police report: Wilcutt's blood alcohol content was only 0.02, the equivalent of one drink. She wasn't even close to the legal limit.

No matter. Shannon Wilcutt was busted anyway. Her little boy was taken from her as she was handcuffed, arrested, and entered into the justice system. That meant weekly random alcohol tests, weekly phone calls to a court-appointed "counselor," and the looming possibility of heavy fines and a three-year license revocation, not to mention jail time.

It would take two years and thousands of dollars for Wilcutt to be vindicated.

Shannon Wilcutt wasn't a big drinker, and she'd certainly never been in trouble with the law before. Her husband, Bryan, is a software engineer working on his doctorate in computer science. Shannon is a homemaker who's taking classes at the University of Phoenix, though at the time of her arrest she worked in Walgreens' inventory department. The couple have three boys and a home on a quiet street in the older part of Chandler.

On the morning of May 18, 2006, Wilcutt, then 34, underwent surgery to remove a bad set of dentures. The dentist used Novocain but didn't knock her out. After the procedure, her dentist cleared her to leave — and prescribed hydrocodone for the pain. (That medication is a generic form of Vicodin.)

Too tired to cook, Wilcutt took 4-year-old John to Mimi's Café, a chain restaurant. She ate soup and a muffin and drank half a mimosa, but the orange juice irritated her mouth, which was raw and sore from the surgery. Feeling dehydrated, she switched to water. The waitress brought her goblet after goblet.

At the very end of the meal, Wilcutt took one hydrocodone pill. She wanted to stop at the mall and get bath salts, a trip she estimated at 10 minutes, max. She figured the pain pill would kick in as she reached her house and settled into the tub.

She didn't realize that Steven Ceballes, the aforementioned businessman, had already made a phone call.

Ceballes is the owner of a commercial landscape company called Horticulture West. Dining with clients, he noticed that Wilcutt was woozy. He suspected alcohol, according to a statement he gave police, so he called the cops. He then followed Wilcutt's minivan to the Chandler Mall to point her out to the officers.

At the time, Wilcutt was suffering from numerous health problems. She was significantly overweight, asthmatic, and had a herniated disc in her back. So although she did fine on some of the field sobriety tests, like counting to 30, she had difficulty walking and turning and standing on one leg.

She was also freaking out. She felt herself gasping for breath; right in front of the police officers, she took a hit on her inhaler.

Numerous academic studies have shown that inhalers can artificially increase a breathalyzer's blood alcohol reading. But the cops administered the breath test anyway, just minutes after she used her inhaler, Wilcutt says. Sure enough, it gave an inflated reading of 0.048.

Even that, of course, is well under the legal limit. But the cops were convinced Wilcutt was impaired, possibly by drugs. She said she'd taken one hydrocodone pill, but they were convinced she'd had at least two. The police report notes that Wilcutt's eyes were heavy and "her speech was slow and slurred."

"I had no teeth in," she says now, laughing. "I had just had my dentures removed, remember?"

The sketchy sobriety tests, plus Wilcutt's admission that she'd taken a hydrocodone pill, were enough to book her. She was handcuffed and taken to a jail cell, where she waited for her husband to pick her up. John, terrified, was separated from his mother and taken to the police station to wait with the officers.

It took nearly five months for DPS to return Wilcutt's drug screen. Turns out, she had taken just one hydrocodone, the prescribed dosage. Meanwhile, her blood test confirmed Wilcutt's protestations that she hadn't been swilling wine. Blood tests are significantly more accurate than portable breathalyzers like the one police initially used. Wilcutt's test put her blood alcohol content at 0.022 — way under the legal limit of 0.08.

Chandler Police Detective David Ramer says that didn't matter. A witness said she was driving badly. Never mind that the witness also mistook water for wine. Makes you wonder about his powers of perception, doesn't it? They also knew she'd been driving with a little kid in the car. And there was hydrocodone in her blood — the fact that it was legally prescribed doesn't matter if it affected her driving. Police are still convinced it did.

So police recommended three felony charges. The county attorney agreed.

Something weird happened in the process. Chandler Police had recommended that Shannon Wilcutt be charged with "being impaired to the slightest degree," a charge that allows cops to use discretion and charge someone with DUI, even if their blood alcohol content is as low as 0.02. But when the Maricopa County Attorney's Office indicted her, Wilcutt was instead charged with DUI above 0.08 — a ludicrous charge on its face, and one that prosecutors could never possibly prove in court.

Ultimately, though, the details didn't matter. In cases like these, it's still up to the accused to prove innocence, or face trial. And Shannon Wilcutt was never going to plead guilty to any charge of driving while impaired.

"I'm Italian-Irish," she says, describing her willingness to fight. "And I knew I wasn't guilty."

She had an added incentive. The Wilcutts were in the process of getting approval to adopt a pair of kids out of the foster care system. They worried that, even absent a conviction, the nature of the charges could derail their plan.

Last month, the county attorney dropped all charges. The part that still stings? The Wilcutts can never recoup the $12,000 they spent in legal fees, money they had to borrow money from friends and family.

"These were just bizarre circumstances that collided in one day to cause this," Bryan Wilcutt acknowledges. "But there are checkpoints that should make sure that a case like this doesn't go any further.

"When they saw the results of her blood and alcohol tests, this should have all gone away."
Your immediate reaction to that story is probably much like mine. Yes, it's scary, and it cost the Wilcutts plenty, but it was an aberration. The circumstances were bizarre.

Then there is a woman named Sifford, a slim, attractive woman with a job in midlevel management at a local healthcare company. She's passionately opposed to drunk driving.

Sifford was driving home from a George Thorogood concert last October. It was the first time she'd gone out in months; she'd had back surgery five weeks before and was taking time to heal up. The concert was fun, but by midnight, she was looking forward to bed.

Sifford was just a mile from her house when she noticed a car stopped by police, and she slowed down to rubberneck. "I have two boys in their early 20s," she explains. "Every time I see a cop car, or an accident, I automatically think of my boys."

But she passed too close to the parked car. That was her one mistake. The next thing Sifford knew, she was charged with DUI, driving under the influence of drugs, unsafe passing of an emergency vehicle, and failure to drive in a single lane.

She'd had only one glass of wine. She'd been the designated driver.

The crazy thing is that police knew that when they charged her. The breathalyzer put her blood alcohol content at 0.03, well below the 0.08 legal limit.

But the Scottsdale police were convinced Sifford was on drugs. Without evidence, the officer kept hassling her about whether or not she'd used cocaine at the concert, Sifford says. And when Sifford volunteered that she'd taken a Vicodin earlier in the day because she was still suffering the effects of surgery, they surely thought they had her. That's where the "driving under the influence of drugs" charge came from.

A urine test, performed by officers that night, revealed not even a trace amount of Vicodin. She'd taken the pill so many hours earlier that it had passed out of her system entirely. And, of course, there was no coke in her blood, either.

Diana Sifford wasn't drunk, and she wasn't high. She just drove too close to a parked car.

She was handcuffed, taken to the station, and booked. Her car was impounded. In great pain from sitting while handcuffed, with a tender back, and exhausted, she wasn't released until early morning.

A cop friend told her not to hire a lawyer and to tell the truth at her pretrial hearing and that she'd be okay. But the pretrial hearing was a cattle call — she had just five minutes with the prosecutor, who offered to drop the other charges if she pleaded guilty to the DUI.

Sifford was not about to do that. After the judge refused to listen to her story — refused to even look at the paperwork she'd brought — she knew she had to hire a DUI lawyer.

It cost her about $3,000, but it worked. In January, Sifford pleaded guilty to a single charge of not staying in her lane and agreed to a defensive-driving class.

There are concerns and accuracy questions about the officer's account of her field sobriety tests, she was sniffing constantly, her pulse was above normal, and she swayed. Reading that, without the results of the urine test, one might assume she was coked-up.

But that's the thing about these reports, Shannon Wilcutt's, too.

Shannon Wilcutt had a 0.02 blood alcohol content, but the police report notes a "moderate" odor of alcohol on her breath. How is that possible? It also says that her speech was "slurred" and she had dried blood on her lips. That couldn't possibly be related to dental surgery, could it?

And what about Diana Sifford's rapid pulse? Could it be that she was simply anxious about being pulled over?

The cops were building their cases; it was up to Wilcutt and Sifford to find lawyers willing to ferret out the truth.

The officers are only doing their job, but their job is to bust drunk drivers. That's what the Legislature wants, what the governor wants, and what the public wants. From the minute the cops pull you over, they assume you're drunk.

It's your job to prove yourself innocent.

Frightening. And it's also frightening to think how much overtime money, how many grants from the state and federal government, goes toward busting drivers like Shannon Wilcutt and Diana Sifford. Not to mention paying public defenders in cases where the defendant can't afford a lawyer.

Keeping dangerous drunks off the road should be a priority for all of us. If that means major penalties for a first offense, if that means mandatory Interlock for first time offenders — heck, even if it means yet another "public health" campaign plastering County Attorney Andrew Thomas' mug on billboards across town — it's hard to argue against it.

The problem comes when the focus shifts from stopping real drunks to punishing people who've had only a glass of wine or half a mimosa. It's also troubling, I think, when the punishment isn't commensurate with the crime. Studies have shown that drivers chatting on their cell phones are just as dangerous as those who've had a few drinks. So why should we want to slap three felonies on a woman who's had half a mimosa — when we give a mere citation to drivers impaired by their cell phone use?

Last year, Phoenix was one of the first municipalities in the Valley to pass a law banning text messaging while driving. Good move, right? But the fines and fees amount to less than $500 even in a case in which an accident is involved. Contrast that with someone who's had a few drinks and gets into an accident — you can bet that driver's not getting off without jail time, even though the damage is the same.

It all comes down to our attitude about drinking. Groups like MADD have done such a great job humanizing the victims of drunk drivers, but we forget about the bigger picture. ADOT statistics show that in 94.5 percent of all car accidents in Arizona in 2006, drivers involved had not a drop of alcohol in their systems. Six times as many accidents were caused by speed as by alcohol impairment.

But we still want to throw the book at tipsy drivers — even tipsy drivers who aren't involved in crashes. Thanks to new laws passed by the Arizona Legislature last year, DUI penalties here are among the toughest in the nation.

For a first DUI, even if the driver never hit anything and is barely above the legal limit, the penalty is still 10 days in jail, $1,500 in fines, and an interlock device on the car for a year. (It's worse if you're extremely drunk. Get popped with blood alcohol content of 0.20, and even if it's your first offense, you're looking at 45 days in jail, $6,300 in fines and fees, and an interlock device for 18 months.)

And what about Shannon Wilcutt? With a child under 15 in the car, her offense was automatically a felony. She could have faced up to $150,000 in fines and fees, plus jail time.

The possibility of such harsh punishment is having a serious effect on the system, and it's not necessarily what lawmakers intended. Karyn Klausner is a former municipal court judge who now handles numerous DUI cases as a lawyer at the Gillespie Law Firm in Phoenix. She says more and more defendants are choosing to pay for DUI lawyers — and go to DUI trial — rather than face the Legislature's mandatory minimums. And the DUI defendants are winning.

"In many instances, people don't have anything to lose by going to trial," Klausner says. "So we fight like hell. It's inundating the prosecutors, costing the state lots of money — and they're losing. These are decent prosecutors, but in a trial, you never know what's going to happen."

And here's the sick part. Harsh DUI penalties make DUI defendants squirm, but studies show that they don't actually prevent DUI - drunk drinking.

It's way too soon to see what effect Arizona's new DUI laws are having. It'll be at least two years before we have any data that show whether there's been a change in accident rates.

If history is any indicator, though, we may be disappointed.

Alexander Wagenaar is a professor of epidemiology and health policy at the University of Florida. He doesn't share everyone's views about social drinkers; he admits he'd like to see the United States set the DUI legal limit even lower than 0.08, as it is in Europe.

But Wagenaar has made his name by studying what actually reduces drunk driving — and his results might surprise Arizona legislators. Mandatory jail time and heavy fines, his studies conclude, are not effective deterrents.

Far more effective, researchers have found, are immediate license revocations. If it happens quickly, and happens to everyone who's busted, revocation can be a serious deterrent, DUI lawyers point out.

The point of long DUI jail sentences and big DUI fines isn't deterrence — it's DUI punishment.

California DUI attorney news

A Sacramento woman involved in a fatal December crash was arrested Friday on charges of California DUI driving under the influence.

According to the California Highway Patrol California DUI cops, 34-year-old Bethann Colyer smelled like alcohol when she was picked up just after noon on Friday.

According to California DUI officers, Colyer said she had been smoking marijuana.

Colyer ran a red light and slammed into another vehicle at Whitney and Eastern avenues at 10:50 p.m. Dec. 19, California DUI police said.

On the day of the California DUI fatal wreck, officers said, Colyer had just left Dub's Daily Dose bar in Carmichael, according to California DUI attorneys.

Scott Allen Crouch, 18, was killed in the December California DUI crash.

Of the eight other people in Crouch's vehicle, five suffered major injuries and three had minor injuries.

Colyer was charged Friday with California DUI gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, California DUI driving under the influence with injury, with enhancements for each of the eight additional victims who were injured, California DUI lawyers hear.

She was booked into the Sacramento County Jail Friday on the felony warrant from December, California DUI attorneys report.

san diego dui lawyer

A La Mesa councilman will ask Mayor Art Madrid to pay for the investigation into how police responded when they found the mayor and a city employee apparently drunk on a street.

On Tuesday, La Mesa's city manager hired a private investigator to determine whether police followed policy Feb. 20 when they found Madrid, 73, and finance employee Trisha Turner, 34, a block from the mayor's home.

Turner was behind the wheel of Madrid's SUV, the engine running. Madrid was lying on the sidewalk. Police drove them to Madrid's home but did not cite them or give them sobriety tests.

The county District Attorney's Office has filed a San Diego DUI charge against Turner.

The investigation is not expected to cost more than $7,500. La Mesa, though, has a budget deficit and is considering a sales-tax increase for the November ballot.

Ewin said that after the investigation is complete and Turner's case is closed, he will ask Madrid at a council meeting to reimburse.

San Diego DUI attorneys love the Irish.

10.99% favour reduced drink driving level
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
99% of people recently surveyed are in favour of a reduction in the current drink driving level.

The nationwide survey, carried out road safety group PARC, found that most people believe the current drink driving limit of 80mg for every 100ml of blood should be reduced.

Almost two-thirds (59%) of those questioned were in favour of a zero blood alcohol level. Susan Gray, Chairperson of PARC, says the results show a growing attitude among people that the current drink driving limits are too high, with only 1% of people in support of them as they are.

The survey was conducted in Locations Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, and Cork among 3,262 people. It was carried out by PARC supported by Alcohol Action Ireland.

Irish DUI defense lawyers would not be opposed.

San Diego Drunk Driving Criminal Defense attorney news

An Oceanside woman who was shot by an off-duty San Diego police officer says she wasn't San Diego Drunk Driving or high when the incident occurred.

Speaking alongside her San Diego criminal defense lawyer Mr. Iredale on Wednesday, 27-year-old Rachel Silva also talked about needing to pick up her son as to why she was driving on a suspended license because of two previous San Diego Drunk Driving / DUI convictions.

Silva, who was unarmed, was shot twice in the right arm by off-duty San Diego police officer Frank White March 15 in the parking lot of a Lowe's home improvement store on Old Grove Road near state Route 76 in Oceanside. Silva's 8-year-old son was also hit once in the leg.

Silva's San Diego top notch attorney, Gene Iredale, filed a claim against the city of San Diego Wednesday seeking unspecified damages. The claim also calls for periodic psychological testing of officers and training “in the limitations by law on their off-duty conduct.”

A claim is typically the first step in filing a lawsuit.

Oceanside police have said the shooting may have culminated a road-rage incident, and that White, who was with his wife at the time, fired five shots at Silva's vehicle.

Police are still investigating the case. San Diego Drunk Driving Lawyers are following this.

Silva, 27, hasn't given a statement to Oceanside police. Police have declined to corroborate an account of the shooting by her San Diego attorney.

Oceanside police claim Silva was given a toxicology test and White wasn't. The toxicology tests generally are given only if someone displays symptoms of intoxication or if suspected of San Diego Drunk Driving.

San Diego Police Homicide Lt. Kevin Rooney said officers involved in shootings, whether on-duty or off-duty, are not automatically tested for drugs or alcohol. Such testing is done only if there is reason to suspect the officer might be under the influence, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech or bloodshot eyes.

San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving attorneys are questioning this entire case.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer news

Around 100 Swedes may have been wrongly suspected--and possibly sentenced to prison--for DUI - drunk driving due to faulty breathalyzer test machines.

“The matter concerns people just near the limit for drunk driving or serious drunk driving. The National Laboratory of Forensic Science will be working all night to identify them,” said police spokesperson Mattias Andersson.

Andersson couldn’t rule out the possibility that some of those wrongly accused of drunk driving may have been sentenced to prison.

“We can’t rule it out because we don’t know how far legal proceedings may have progressed. It doesn’t seem especially likely, but we’ll look into it [on Wednesday] together with the Prosecution Authority,” he said.

As of Tuesday, it remained unclear exactly how many people may have been wrongly convicted of drunk driving.

Last week, the National Laboratory of Forensic Science (SKL) discovered the malfunction with Evidenzer machines used to administer breathalyzer tests.

The problem arose after the machine’s software was updated by SKL in early December.

“There is supposed to be a scope to ensure that readings can’t be misinterpreted. It was one of these safety margins which didn’t come with the update,” said Andersson.

The machine is found at police stations and is used on people who have already blown a positive reading on another machine.

The police have temporarily halted the use of the Evidenzer machines.

The Prosecution Authority has decided that no decisions to prosecute will be made or sentences issues until the problem has been solved.

The registry of criminals and suspects will be purged so that no innocent people remain on the registry, according to DUI police.

San Diego DUI lawyers are familiar with A. W. Jones, the famous Swedish scientist / forensic expert who may be able to shed some light on this.

When prosecutors want more San Diego DUI prosecuting attorneys, they get them.

Against the advice of executive staff, the Board of Supervisors Tuesday approved District Attorney Rod Pacheco's request to hire more prosecutors to help oversee a new case management system meant to pare down the county's backlog of criminal cases.

In a 5-0 vote, the board cleared Pacheco to increase his staff of supervising deputy district attorneys by four, at a current fiscal year cost of $289,472.

Pacheco asked for the new positions to meet increased demands placed on the D.A.'s office under a recently implemented Riverside County Superior Court case management system conceived by a working group of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers and law enforcement representatives.

Under the new system, felony cases are assigned to “vertical calendar departments” and “pre-preliminary hearing conference departments,” where the focus is on the “resolution of a greater number of cases at an earlier stage in the (judicial) process,” Riverside County Presiding Judge Richard T. Fields said earlier this month.

In the western half of the county, the backlog of criminal cases awaiting trial has exceeded 1,000 since 2006, according to San Diego DUI lawyers.

“We haven't had significant changes in the court system since (the mid-1980s),” Pacheco told the board. “The working group represents an opportunity to change the manner in which we do business. It's an evolutionary step. The court system has to evolve. It's going to be a struggle to get that done.”

The county's top prosecutor said he needed experienced trial lawyers to supervise the vertical and pre-preliminary courtrooms and would have to re-assign senior deputy district attorneys involved in murder and gang prosecutions if his request was not granted.

“Even with four additional SSDAs, our management resources will still be stretched to their maximum capacity,” Pacheco said.

Riverside County Chief Executive Officer Larry Parrish forwarded a letter to the board members, urging them to hold off on approving any new positions as a matter of good financial housekeeping.

“It is our practice to recommend that off-budget requests such as this be referred to the (June) budget hearings,” Parrish wrote. “We appreciate that the District Attorney has indicated that he can temporarily shift positions to support this program. This will allow the board to consider this request among other general fund priorities.”

But Supervisor Jeff Stone pointed out the board's recent approval of increased funds for the Public Defender's Office and said the county should be “consistent in giving the resources necessary.”

“I don't want this to be at the expense of prosecuting murders or at the expense of prosecuting gangs,” Stone said.

Supervisor Marion Ashley described the court's new case management system as a “breath of fresh air.”

“We should support your efforts,” Ashley told Pacheco. “We have to make this system work. We've suffered with this backlog of cases for too long.”

Pacheco said he was “guardedly optimistic” that more criminal cases would be cleared in reasonable time instead of being “pushed to the back end of the dispositional process.” But he warned the new system had already experienced “hiccups” and a lack of cooperation on the part of one judge.

“The best system devised by man can never work if people don't believe in it and don't exercise self-discipline,” he said.

California Fourth District Court of Appeals Judge Richard D. Huffman, who headed the working group, wrote a letter in support of Pacheco's request, citing the benefits of a case management system built on universal cooperation.

“Earlier resolution of cases should reduce the number of court appearances and should also reduce the time defendants spend in the county jail as pretrial detainees,” the judge wrote. “Reduction in the number of appearances and the length of pretrial delay should reduce the overall per-case cost for criminal cases.”

San Diego DUI defense attorneys deal with these issues regularly.

San Diego DUI lawyer news

A man faces felony drunken-driving charges after crashing his dune buggy Sunday night, injuring himself and a passenger, according to San Diego DUI lawyer sources.

The crash occurred about 11:30 p.m. Sunday. Joe Romero, 33, of Fallbrook, was driving a dune buggy south on Rainbow Heights Road, Newbury said. He lost control on a curve, drove off the edge and rolled over.

Romero was ejected from his vehicle, breaking five ribs from the impact upon landing, Newbury said. He was taken to Palomar Medical Center for treatment. His passenger, Tad Schiller, 35, of Fallbrook, was wearing a seat belt and suffered a cut to his head and lip, San Diego DUI attorneys hear.

Once released from the hospital, Romero will be booked into Vista jail and charged with felony drunken driving and driving on a suspended license, San Diego DUI lawyers are told.

San Diego DUI lawyer news

A San Diego DUI man faces a felony San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving charge in connection with a North County traffic accident that injured him and five other people over the weekend, San Diego DUI attorneys learned Monday.

The head-on San Diego DUI crash occurred about 1:30 p.m. Sunday when a westbound 1994 Ford Mustang veered across solid double yellow lines on East Mission Road in Fallbrook and into the path of an oncoming 1990 Ford Aerostar near Valentine Lane, according to San Diego DUI lawyers.

Medics airlifted the driver of the Mustang, Matthew Kotas, 31, and the other motorist, 45-year-old Salvador Perez of Fallbrook, to Palomar Hospital in Escondido for treatment of serious injuries, San Diego DUI attorneys said.

Perez's 17-year-old daughter, Jessica, suffered a facial laceration and was taken to Children's Hospital in San Diego. His 46-year-old wife, Adalina, 11-year-old son, Leopoldo, and 10-year-old daughter, Maribel, were treated for complaints of pain to their extremities, San Diego DUI lawyers said.

Officers found marijuana and a prescription-medication bottle in Kotas' car, San Diego DUI attorneys hear.

Kotas will be charged with felony San Diego DUI and was released into the care of the staff of Palomar Hospital, San Diego DUI lawyers are told.

DUI arrest info for California DUI cases(northern)

Brown, James, 21, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Brown, Jeana, 35, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, seven days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Cervantes, Roberto, 55, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, 17 days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Chavez, Jose, 39, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Covarrubias, Robert, 35, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, seven days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Cuevas, Aida, 22, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Gamis, Dwight, 21, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Gaona, Jose, 35, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, 35 days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Hurtron, Humberto, 39, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, 15 days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Jimenez, Roberto, 42, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, 15 days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Ledford, Jody, 36, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Lua, Rafael, 28, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, 10 days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Ochoa, Martin, 19, of Stockton: Second California DUI conviction, five years' probation, $2,323 fine, 10 days in jail, second-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Panduro, Juan, 26, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Perez, Rene, 25, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Ruiria, Kristofferson, 28, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Raygoza, Jose, 39, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Salazar, Omar, 22, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer news

Seven people were arrested on suspicion of San Diego DUI - drunk driving during a police checkpoint conducted Friday and Saturday, San Diego DUI attorneys report.

San Diego DUI Officers contacted 518 drivers in the two days in the city, including at the checkpoint at Bonita Road and Willow Street.

Roughly 50 drivers were cited for various violations, such as driving without a license, San Diego DUI lawyers said.

The San Diego DUI special operations were paid for with a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

San Diego DUI attorneys tell folks if they get a DUI, have it happen in Australia.


DRINK-driving no longer means loss of licence, with figures revealing selected "soft" local courts let off most low-range offenders with barely a warning.

40 per cent of the 6841 caught low-range drink-driving in 2006 were discharged by magistrates without a conviction or loss of licence.

But as police said they expect to catch more than 400 drunk drivers behind the wheel over the Easter long weekend, it was revealed the discharge rate soars at specific local courts that are developing a reputation for generous use of section 10 of the NSW Crimes Act, which permits a magistrate to discharge a proven offence.

This is even though the official penalty is a minimum three-month licence disqualification and $1100 fine for first time offenders.

Even among mid-range drink-drive offenders - who are supposed to cop a six-month disqualification and $2200 fine - about 19 per cent are keeping their licence.

The figures come following day three of Operation Tortoise, targeting speeding and drink-driving on NSW roads during Easter.

Police said that on day three of last year, 440 drink-drivers had been caught and the figure for this year was expected to exceed 400.

In Sydney, Balmain Local Court discharged 48 of the 76 people charged with low-range prescribed concentration of alcohol, that is between .05 and .08, under section 10.

Magistrates working at Bankstown were also among the more lenient, discharging 62 per cent.

Others with high section 10 rates include Newcastle (62.8 per cent), Katoomba (75 per cent), Kogarah (53.7 per cent), Manly (51.3 per cent) and Waverley (53.9 per cent).

The figures, compiled by the Bureau of Crime Statistics for this newspaper, also show that in country areas in 2006 some local courts appear to let almost everyone off.

At Wellington, the six people who appeared in court were granted the section 10 leniency.

At Cobar, in the Far West, 13 out of the 14 presenting on low-range drink-driving were granted section 10 discharges.

Records show 2016 of the 10,441 people with mid-range charges were granted a section 10.

About 126 out of 3827 charged with high-range offences, over .15 PCA, were let go.

The Head of traffic services, Chief Superintendent John Hartley, last night expressed his frustration that some magistrates viewed drink-driving as a minor offence.

San Diego DUI attorneys often hear stories from their clients about how San Diego county DUI police officer treat them. Here is your chance. Go to http://www.ratemycop.com

Rate your San Diego county DUI police officer

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q: How do I leave feedback?


A: Search for your officer by name or state, answer a couple questions and post it.


Q: Will I remain anonymous?


A: Absolutely. Only your username is visible on the site. As long as your comments are reasonable you will remain anonymous. Users who leave threatening or abusive comments will be turned over to the proper authorities.


Q: What San Diego DUI officer information is posted on this Website?


A: The information posted on RATEMYCOP.com is limited to what would be written on a traffic ticket to identify the issuing officer. No private information or information about officers who require anonymity is listed.


Q: Where did you get this information?


A: The lists of officers were provided by the agencies themselves after a Public Records request was made by RATEMYCOP.com.


Q: How can I get a comment removed?


A: If you are aware of an abusive comment, Flag It and we will be notified. If it violates our Terms of Service—meaning it is offensive, threatening or a personal attack— it will be removed.


Q: What is the purpose of this site?


A: It is the hope of the site’s founders that citizens and departments alike will use this powerful tool as a way of monitoring San Diego DUI police performance. San Diego DUI officers who do their job well will receive the public attention they deserve. So will the dishonorable few who try to hide misconduct behind the power of their badge.


Q: What was the inspiration for this Website?


A: The owner was at dinner with a friend who had just received a ticket. This friend was telling the story of how it happened and a long conversation ensued. The owner thought this would be a great idea for a Website since this seems to a topic most everybody can talk about. Prior to the launch of RATEMYCOP.com, people had no way to find or provide feedback about San Diego DUI officers who are being paid by tax dollars.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers news

The woman who was shot by an off-duty San Diego police officer in Oceanside on Saturday night was identified by San Diego DUI sources yesterday as 27-year-old Rachel Silva of Camp Pendleton.

She and her 8-year-old son were wounded in the confrontation with the officer after a roadway altercation ended up in the parking lot of a Lowe's home improvement store on Old Grove Road near state Route 76.

Police have yet to provide details of the incident, but said they allegedly have statements from the officer, Frank White, and the boy.

Silva has yet to give her side of the story to police authorities nor is she obligated to do so. Her San Diego civil rights/ personal injury / criminal defense attorney, Jack Phillips, will help her.

Records with the state Department of Motor Vehicles purportedly show Silva's driver's license has been suspended or revoked. She reportedly has one San Diego DUI related conviction and was allegedly arrested on a second San Diego DUI charge in January, San Diego county DUI records indicate.

San Diego area police have said one of the drivers allegedly cut off the other vehicle. Then one of the drivers reportedly followed the other into the Lowe's parking lot. Silva was driving a silver Honda, and White was in a black Mercury sedan.

Police have not said how many rounds White fired in the parking lot or what type of weapon he used.

The woman was taken to Sharp Memorial Hospital and her son was taken to Rady Children's Hospital – both in Kearny Mesa.

The boy was released Wednesday, San Diego DUI attorneys understand. The lady is married to a member of the military and lives at Camp Pendleton, reportedly has joint legal custody of her son, according to San Diego DUI lawyers.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer news

Actor Mickey Rourke is speaking out about his latest brush with the law during which he was charged with DUI - driving under the influence on his pastel-colored Vespa scooter, according to DUI criminal defense lawyers.

The Hollywood actor admitted to breaking the DUI law, but — in describing the Miami Beach incident — denied he was drunk that November morning: "I did a left U-turn at a red light, but I wasn't drunk," he said.

Rourke has pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of reckless driving and will take an online driving course in addition to paying a fine, according to DUI criminal defense attorneys.

The actor had harsh words for the DUI arresting officer, indicating the man was overweight and not fit.

San Diego DUI man

A San Diego man whose girlfriend was killed when he ran a stop sign in Mission Valley while drunk and crashed his sedan into a bus pleaded guilty Thursday to gross vehicular manslaughter and felony DUI.

Kenneth Anthony Smith, who entered his San Diego DUI plea before Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Fraser, will be sentenced to 14 years and four months in state prison on May 7.

The 50-year-old defendant would have faced a maximum 38-year term if convicted of all charges at trial.

Smith's girlfriend, 53-year-old Deborah Voss, suffered major head injuries in the May 20, 2007, crash, which occurred about 8:50 p.m. in the 900 block of Hotel Circle North. She was taken off life-support systems two days later.

San Diego DUI Authorities said Smith was on probation for being under the influence of drugs when the accident occurred and also has a 1984 conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter.

Cecelia Serrano-Maldona, who was one of two injured people aboard the bus, testified at an earlier hearing that she and others were heading home to Encinitas from a church conference at the Town and Country Hotel when she heard the sound of screeching tires.

The San Diego DUI witness said she needed 10 stitches to close a cut on her forehead from broken glass.

San Diego DUI Witness Susan Lupsha testified that she was eastbound on Hotel Circle North behind Smith's 1988 Mercedes-Benz when it failed to slow down and slammed into the back of the school bus, which was about to make a turn.

San Diego police Officer Henry Castro, who was dispatched to evaluate Smith to see if he was San Diego DUI impaired, said earlier the motorist was upset and agitated when he talked to him at the crash scene.

Smith told another officer that he and Vess had used cocaine in Ocean Beach before driving to Mission Valley, San Diego DUI officer Castro testified.

The San Diego DUI defendant told the first officer at the scene that his driver's license had been suspended, according to Officer Blake Cheary.

Cheary testified that Smith told him that he took his eyes off the road when a car passed him on the right.

San Diego police Officer Heidi Hawley previously testified that Smith told her that he "panicked" when a car went past him and another came toward him on the roadway.

The San Diego DUI defendant listed several medications he was taking, including two anti-depressants and one for pain, according to a San Diego DUI officer.

The San Diego DUI officer estimated Smith was driving about 50 mph in a 35 mph zone before braking, and said the car was going an estimated 25-30 mph when it hit the bus.

San Diego DUI attorney

Harwood goes out much more on weekends now that he doesn’t have to drive. Dutch VanHemert will pick him up near his house or even at his door if he leaves a tip.
“What do you do in Ojai without a bus or a taxi?” asks Harwood. “If you have one or two drinks you’re a sitting duck for DUI.”
On its eighth weekend today, Ojai’s designated driver service has been a success so far, according to its originators.
Jump-started by Nigel Chisholm, owner of The Village Jester, and Dutch Detail’s VanHemert, local restaurants have pooled funds to hire VanHemert as a weekend shuttle service.
In an effort to help community members enjoy a safe and legal night on the town, the service runs hourly on Fridays and Saturdays from 7 p.m. to 2:30 a.m, transporting passengers to various stops throughout the valley for free.
In an early meeting among participating restaurant owners, the new transportation service was dubbed the Downtown Shuttle. VanHemert, who also uses the vehicle to run an airport shuttle during the week, is getting magnetic signs that spell the designated driver service’s new name to be displayed on the vehicle on weekend nights.
So far there are nine participating establishments; The Emerald Iguana Inn, The Blue Iguana Inn, Suzanne’s Cuisine, Feast Bistro, Auberge at Ojai, Q-Time BBQ and Sports Grill, Azu, Antonio’s and The Village Jester are all pooling funds to pay for costs so that the service is free for passengers, according to VanHemert. The Hub and Sakura are still undecided, and the Deer Lodge and Il Giardino’s have dropped out, he said.
The Downtown Shuttle stops at locations throughout the Valley including most of the downtown bars and restaurants, but VanHemert said he will pick people up and drop them off at home for free with a suggested gratuity.
With about 275 passengers since its inception, and 70 to 80 the weekend before St. Patrick’s Day, according to VanHemert, the shuttle has been getting plenty of use, likely taking a number of intoxicated locals off the roads.
The California Highway Patrol made 1,635 DUI arrests in the west side of Ventura County in 2007, according to California Highway Patrol Officer Shawna Davison. And the Ojai Valley saw 32 DUI-related car accidents in that time period. Since the new year there have already been six DUI related accidents in the valley, she said.
“You look at a corner on Ojai Avenue on any given weekend and there is a police car waiting,” said Harwood. He is much more comfortable going out riding the new Downtown Shuttle than taking the chance.
“Dutch has been doing a good job, he has a good, safe vehicle and drives safely,” he said.
You don’t have to be intoxicated to use the new transportation service, however. It is ideal for out-of-towners, in Ojai for the weekend who want to grab a bite to eat. Local resident Bill Loehr, who said that he doesn’t go out very often, took the shuttle one weekend when he had an eye infection and couldn’t drive.
Chisholm said that so far he feels the service has been extremely successful. And although he has handed the management of the designated driver service over to VanHemert, he continues to participate, and hopes it will continue on past the trial period.

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney news

A San Diego DUI / drunk driving charge was filed Thursday against a woman who was found slumped over in the driver's seat of an SUV owned by La Mesa Mayor Art Madrid, who was discovered lying on a sidewalk nearby and escorted home by officers.

Trisha Kristine Turner, a finance department employee for the city of La Mesa, faces up to six months in jail if convicted of the San Diego DUI.

She is scheduled to be arraigned for the San Diego DUI on April 10 in El Cajon, but does not have to personally appear in court if she hires a San Diego DUI lawyer because the San Diego DUI charge is a misdemeanor.

Madrid was found lying on a sidewalk near his sports utility vehicle about a block from his home around 10:30 p.m. on Feb. 20. Turner, 34, was keeled over in the driver's seat with the engine still running, San Diego DUI attorneys hear.

Police, who gave both a ride home, did not see either of them driving intoxicated because they pulled up to a stopped vehicle.

Madrid has not been charged with a crime, including San Diego DUI, say San Diego DUI attorneys.

The mayor has apologized for his actions, saying he doesn't have a drinking problem.

San Diego DUI attorney information

DUI Programs San Diego DUI Programs DUI

In San Diego County, there are four (4) San Diego locations that provide 12 hour, 3 month, 9 month and 18 month San Diego DUI programs. These are providers authorized by both San Diego County Courts and San Diego DMV.

If you should be convicted in court and assigned a San Diego program as part of your San Diego court probation, you will be required to participate in one of the four (4) programs offered at these San Diego locations:


East County ACCORD
1136 Broadway, Suite 10
El Cajon CA 92021
Phone: 619-562-5850;
Episcopal Community Services

Occupational Health Services, Inc.
1637 Capalina Road
San Marcos CA 92069
Phone: 760-891-1500

Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee MAAC
1355 Third Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91911
Phone: 619-409-1780
MAAC Project

The school program is typically divided into two parts. A six week educational part held two days a week (90 minutes each) for 12 weeks at the same time there is a more informal gathering of 10 to 12 individuals another two days per week (again 90 minutes each). If you are more than 10 minutes late for any of these sessions you can't get into the class and therefore must pay a $20.00 rescheduling fee.

Central District
9245 Sky Park Court, Suite 101
San Diego CA 92123
Phone: 858-467-6810
San Diego State University DUI Program

DWI criminal defense lawyer news

A man has been sentenced to 60 years in prison for his 10th conviction of DWI - driving while intoxicated since 1979.

Prosecutors say 53-year-old Anthony Lynn Falco of Taylor waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded not guilty to the felony DWI charge over the June 22 traffic stop.

A statement Tuesday from the Williamson County prosecutor says DWI tests showed Falco's blood alcohol content was 0.17 percent, more than twice the legal limit for driving in Texas.

Prosecutor John Bradley says Falco had nine prior DWI convictions and served prison terms from five to 10 years.

San Diego DUI lawyer news

A woman who police said was shot Saturday by an off-duty San Diego police officer during a road rage incident has hired the same attorney who represented a former San Diego Chargers player, who was shot by a different off-duty officer in 2006.

Police say the woman, who they have not identified, retained the same San Diego lawyer represented linebacker Steve Foley after Foley, suspected of drunken driving, was shot three times by an off-duty Coronado Police officer Aaron Mansker in 2006.

In Saturday's shooting, which left the woman and her 8-year-old son wounded, off-duty officer Franklin "Frank" White fired an undisclosed number of shots into the woman's car at about 9:30 p.m. in a shopping center parking lot off Old Grove Road, according to officials. The number of shots fired is one of several details police have declined to release.

The incident began when the driver of one car cut off the driver of the other car, Oceanside police contend. One driver followed the other to the Lowe's Home Improvement store parking lot on Old Grove Road, where the shooting took place.

The woman and her 8-year-old son were inside their car at the time of the shooting, officials said. Both remain hospitalized but are expected to survive.

White, who has allegedly made a statement to investigators, was placed on paid administrative leave following the shooting.

Oceanside investigators are purportedly still waiting for the woman to consent to be interviewed about the incident.

No one involved has been taken into custody or charged.

In Foley case, an off-duty Coronado Police officer testified that he started following the football player's car because he suspected drunken driving. The car eventually stopped on a dark road outside Foley's home.

Foley got out of the car and confronted the officer, who ultimately shot Foley three times.

The officer, who was not injured in the incident, testified that Foley presented a threat to his safety.

In December 2007, the district attorney's office announced that neither man would be criminally charged in the confrontation.

The district attorney concluded both men had acted in self-defense.

Investigators of the Oceanside incident have not said whether the off-duty San Diego officer said his life was threatened by the woman he shot.

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney news

1
SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the
convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the
interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
State v. Jane H. Chun, et al. (A-96-06)
Argued April 5, 2007
Re-argued January 7, 2008 –- Decided March 17, 2008
HOENS, J., writing for the Court.
In this case, the Court addresses the scientific reliability of the Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C evidentiary breathtesting
device (Alcotest) and considers the admissibility of the Alcohol Influence Reports (AIRs) that it generates
for the prosecution of defendants under New Jersey drunk driving laws.
Defendants are twenty individuals charged with driving while intoxicated, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, in Middlesex
County, who challenged the admissibility of Alcotest results in their individual proceedings. The Law Division
consolidated the cases to consider the reliability of the device. The State filed a motion requesting that the device be
recognized as scientifically reliable. The Law Division denied that motion, and the State filed an interlocutory
appeal. The Appellate Division remanded the matter, but before that proceeding could continue, the Court directly
certified the appeal pursuant to Rule 2:12-1 on December 14, 2005.
The Court remanded the case to retired Appellate Division Judge Michael Patrick King, sitting as a Special
Master, to conduct a hearing on the overall scientific reliability of the Alcotest. Following four months of
testimony, the Special Master issued a report on February 13, 2007. He concluded that the device was scientifically
reliable, conditioned on specific modifications and recommendations. After that report was issued, but before oral
arguments were heard, the manufacturer of the device, Draeger Safety Diagnostics (Draeger), moved for leave to
intervene, which motion the Court granted on March 27, 2007. Following oral arguments, the Court again remanded
the matter to the Special Master, this time to afford defendants an opportunity, following Draeger’s intervention, to
examine the source code that comprises the Alcotest software. After receipt of experts’ reports and further
testimony, the Special Master issued a supplemental report on November 8, 2007, in which he affirmed his original
finding of scientific reliability, contingent on several additional recommendations. Thereafter, the Court conducted
a second round of oral arguments.
Three distinct sets of challenges were raised regarding the use of Alcotest results in drunk driving
prosecutions. The first set of challenges related to how the machine measures a suspect’s blood alcohol
concentration (BAC). It was contested whether: (1) the Alcotest’s use of a 2100 to 1 blood/breath ratio is unreliable
because it overestimates the actual BAC of some individuals; (2) to avoid equal protection issues, all suspects,
instead of just women over the age of sixty, should be held to a minimum breath sample volume requirement of 1.2
liters of air; (3) a breath temperature sensor is necessary because the machine may overestimate the BAC of exhaled
breath above a certain temperature; (4) the machine’s tolerance, which is the deviation range within which test
measurements must fall to constitute a reliable result, is acceptable.
The next set of challenges related to the Alcotest’s programming and source code. Defendants argued that:
(1) the use of an algorithm to compensate for the depletion or “drift” of fuel cells artificially inflates results; (2) the
use of a “weighted averaging” algorithm, which places greater weight on later breath measurements than earlier
ones, also serves to artificially inflate results; (3) a buffer overflow error undermines the reliability of Alcotest
results in certain circumstances; (4) the lack of catastrophic error detection within the device undermines the
reliability of its results; and (5) the overall programming style fails to follow any design standard, and is so flawed
that it can not be relied on to produce accurate results.
The third set of challenges related to the admissibility of Alcotest results and foundational documents as
potentially violating Sixth Amendment rights under Crawford v. Washington.
2
HELD: The Court adopts, as modified, the Special Master’s reports and recommendations. Subject to certain
conditions, the Court holds that the Alcotest is scientifically reliable and that its results are admissible in drunk
driving prosecutions. The Court contemporaneously issues an Order vacating its January 10, 2006, stay of drunk
driving prosecutions, appeals, and sentencing, which shall proceed in accordance with the directives set forth
therein.
1. There is sufficient credible evidence to support the continued use of a 2100 to 1 blood/breath alcohol ratio
to estimate BAC from a breath sample. The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that use of this ratio tends to
underestimate the actual BAC in the vast majority of persons whose breath is tested. Although there may be a small
number of individuals who are disadvantaged by a device that uses the 2100 to 1 blood/breath ratio, there is sound
scientific support for its continued utilization. (pp. 49-52)
2. The four criteria used by the device to identify a valid breath sample are, with one modification,
appropriate. The Court adopts the recommendation that the minimum breath volume requirement should be
lowered, for women over sixty years of age only, from 1.5 liters to 1.2 liters and concludes that this modification
does not violate equal protection rights. Regardless of minimum breath requirements, no test will be accepted by the
machine until the infrared measurement plateaus, which only occurs when a suspect is expelling deep lung air.
Further, while selectively lowering the breath volume requirement will create a different level at which women over
sixty may be charged with refusal, the record demonstrates that this group, and only this group, may not have the
physiological capability of providing a larger sample. In pending prosecutions, and in future prosecutions based on
tests conducted prior to the implementation of