As California motorists head toward traditionally crowded highways on the Fourth of July holiday, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is urging drivers and passengers to protect themselves by avoiding alcohol, observing speed limits and wearing safety belts.

"The summer is in full swing, and everyone wants to squeeze in as much fun as possible," said Lt. Les Bishop, commander of the CHP's Blythe Area office. "Traffic volumes may be high, and unfortunately so is the potential for collisions."

Last year 18 people died in crashes during the 30-hour July Fourth holiday. CHP officers made 568 DUI arrests during that same period.

This year every available CHP officer will be on the road during the "Maximum Enforcement Period" which begins at 6:01 p.m. on July 3 and ends at midnight, July 6. Independence Day also marks the first holiday since California's new "hands free" cell phone laws went into effect July 1.

"If they need to make or take a call, drivers must remember to keep their hands on the wheel, not on the phone," Bishop, said. "And drivers under 18 must refrain from using the cell phone when they're driving a car."

If you plan to be on the road this weekend, the CHP has several suggestions that can reduce the risk to you and your passengers:

• Make sure that only non-drinking drivers get behind the wheel. Alcohol and driving do not mix.

sandiegodui.com

The most important factor in whether an individual will be arrested for a DUI is the individual human differences of the officer himself.

A study by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration [U.S. Department of Transportation Report No. H5-801-230] points out the effect of these differences on an officer’s observations and conduct in the field:


"The officer’s age and experience play a role in his alcohol-related arrest decisions. Younger officers, and those with relatively few years of seniority, tend to have a more positive attitude toward alcohol-related enforcement and make more arrests on that charge than do older officers. This result was found to hold true regardless of the type of department in which the officer serves or the specific type of duty to which he is assigned.

The officer’s personal use of alcohol is inversely related to his level of alcohol-related enforcement. Patrolmen who drink make significantly fewer arrests than those who do not, and those who drink frequently make significantly fewer arrests than those who use alcohol only occasionally.

Lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between alcohol and intoxication is widespread among police officers and imparts a negative influence on alcohol-related enforcement. Most officers underestimate—often by a wide margin—the amount of alcohol a suspect would have to consume in order to achieve the statutory limit of blood-alcohol concentration.

Specialized training has a strong positive influence on alcohol-related arrests. Patrolmen who have received instruction in the operation of breath testing devices and/or in alcohol-related enforcement—particularly in municipal departments—were found to lack this specialized training.

Specialization in duty assignment can also enhance alcohol-related enforcement. Patrolmen assigned to traffic divisions, in particular, produce higher arrest rates than those charged with general patrol duties.

Near the end of the duty shift, alcohol-related investigations decrease substantially. This is particularly true in departments that have adopted relatively time-consuming procedures for processing alcohol-related arrests.

Weather conditions also affect alcohol-related arrests. There is encouraging evidence that foul weather has a positive influence on the attitude of many officers; they are more appreciative of the risk posed by an alcohol-related suspect when driving conditions are hazardous, and are less likely to avoid the arrest when those conditions prevail.

The suspect’s attitude can have a strong influence on the arrest/no arrest decision. If the suspect proves uncooperative or argumentative, a positive influence for arrest results. Conversely, the likelihood of arrest decreases when the suspect seems cooperative.

The suspect’s race is a key distinguishing characteristic in alcohol-related cases. The officers surveyed—the overwhelming majority of whom were white—reported releasing significantly more nonwhite suspects than they arrested. The data do not suggest that this reflects a greater tendency to exercise discretion when dealing with nonwhite drivers. Rather, the officers seem more willing to initiate an investigation when the suspect is not of their own race.

Suspect’s age is another distinguishing characteristic of these cases, and patrolmen reported releasing significantly more young suspects than they arrested. This appears to stem from two distinct causes. First, young officers exhibit more sympathy for young suspects, i.e., seem less disposed to arrest a driver of their own age group. Second, older officers seem more willing to stop young suspects, i.e., are more likely to conduct an investigation when the driver is young, even if the evidence of alcohol-related violation is not clear.

Suspect’s sex also plays a role in the arrest/no arrest decision. Patrolmen seem more reluctant to arrest a woman for alcohol-related violations, largely because processing of a female arrestee is generally more complex and time consuming.”


Most Drunk Driving cases involve two main issues: the officer and the machine. But the machine is unreliable. As the federal study indicates, the officer is also an unreliable variable.

sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/articles

San Diego California DUI attorneys learned today that the man convicted in a crash that killed a Bakersfield boy received a 17-year prison sentence Tuesday morning.

Gordon Tutton, 62, got the maximum sentence for the California DUI drunk driving death of 13-year-old Brock Bellue in August, 2007.

Tutton maintained his innocence throughout the trial, and said a female friend was really behind the wheel.

"I'm innocent, you know?" Tutton said. "She told them she was driving. You tell me that ain't even a shadow of a doubt?"

Tutton said 22-year-old Shalle Cole was actually driving when his truck crashed into the SUV carrying Bellue, his mother and Bellue's best friend.

Tutton says Cole told her family she was driving, but refused to testify at his trial.

"I pulled over to let her drive 'cause my chest was hurting," Tutton said. "She got away with murder, but I'm not mad at her."

Tutton has a rap sheet dating back to 1961, mostly drug-related charges involving heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana. Over the last four decades he has served approximately 18 years behind bars for his drug-related crimes and was on probation as a part of the state's drug diversion program.

But in August 2006, after pleading guilty to heroin charges, Tutton asked for and received probation under Prop. 36.

He was rearrested just eight months later in Shafter on another drug possession charge and once again Tutton received probation under Prop. 36. Two months later he was involved in the fatal Lerdo Highway crash.


www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

SAN DIEGO DUI LAWYER NEWS

Injured San Diego Chargers linebacker Steve Foley had drunk "a staggering amount" of alcohol the night he was shot by a SAN DIEGO DUI police officer, SAN DIEGO DUI LAWYERS say.

During a trial in which Foley is suing the city of Coronado, Calif., for unjustly ending his National Football League career, the city's defense attorney said Foley's blood alcohol content of 0.21 percent was nearly three times the legal limit when he was seen getting behind the wheel of a "muscle car" and driving off, SAN DIEGO DUI attorneys are told.

Foley was followed by rookie police officer Aaron Mansker, 23, who was off-duty and out of uniform at the time. Both sides in the case agree that a confrontation between Mansker and Foley in a cul-de-sac resulted in two gunshots to Foley's knee and hip, ending his NFL career. Foley says the shooting wasn't justified, and is suing the city of Coronado for $5.5 million in future earnings.

"This man had an awful lot to drink -- a staggering amount, a dangerous amount," attorney Norman Watkins said of Foley on the second day of a civil trial in San Diego Superior Court, per SAN DIEGO DUI attorneys.

sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog

San Diego DUI lawyers hear that Nuggets All-Star Carmelo Anthony has pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of driving while ability-impaired and was sentenced to probation and community service.

Prosecutors dropped a more serious DUI charge Tuesday in exchange for Anthony's plea, according to San Diego DUI attorneys.

He also pleaded guilty to failure to stay in a single lane. He was ordered to serve one year of probation, perform 24 hours of community service, and pay $1,000 in fines, fees and court costs.

On Monday, the Nuggets suspended Anthony for the first two games of the next season because of the drunk driving arrest.

sandiegoduilawyer.com/blog

San diego dui attorney breath test news
http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/defenses.html

States rely on use of a breath testing machine in connection with prosecution of DUI cases. Here is a list of breath alcohol testing machines and some or partial protocols used.

Breath testing is an inexact process, prone to numerous flaws. One of the DUI defense attorney’s biggest hurdles, though, is showing the extent of those flaws. The variety of machines available and in use demonstrates that each different manufacturer is trying to do it better than the next company. The different products use different processes to analyze breath alcohol samples and most claim to be more effective than the others. No single manufacturer has it quite right and that the “technology” for converting a breath sample to a blood alcohol value is very questionable.


AK
1
Datamaster CDM. 15 minute observation period before test.

AL
2
Drager Alcotest 7110. Both blows must be within .02 of each other and must come within one three minute breath test sequence. 20 minute deprivation period before test.

AR
1*
Datamaster. Law allows 2 blows, 1 is the norm. Second blow is entirely at officer’s discretion and lower result is the one required to be reported.

AZ
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 (64-, 66-, 68-), 8000. Two blows no less than 5 minutes, no greater than 10 minutes apart, within .02 of each other.

CA
2
Multiple machines - Intoxilyzer 5000, 8000; Intoximeters EC/IR; Drager ePAS, 7410; Datamaster. Two blows within .02 of each other or a third test is required - no time limit. 15 minute continous observation period prior to testing.

CO
2
Intoxilyzer 5000EN. Breath sample captured for independent retest.

CT
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 (68, EN). Each blow preceded by a 15 minute observation period, with both blows being thirty minutes apart.

DC
2
5000EN. Breath samples are taken within 10 minutes of each other following a 20 minute observation period. Capitol Police Department requires both samples to be within .02 of each other.

DE



FL
2
Intoxilyzer 5000, 8000. Unlimited time and number of tests to get two within .02 of each other. 20 minute observation period before test by administrative regulation.

GA
2*
Intoxilyzer 5000 (68-). Two blows required by statute and must be within .02 of each other; if one adequate sample provided, no refusal penalty for refusing second blow and state will proceed on basis of one blow. No prescribed time limits in which to obtain both samples, but machine’s software takes two minutes between tests. 20 minute observation period set forth in machine manual, but caselaw opines that any variance goes only to weight, not admissibility.

HI
1
Intoxilyzer 5000 (EN); Intoxilyzer 8000 in approval process. 15 minute observation period before test.

IA
1
Datamaster CDM. 15 minute observation period before test.

ID
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 (66-, 68-). Blows must be within .02 of each other or a third blow is required. Blows must occur within two minutes following a 15 minute observation period.

IL
1
Intoxilyzer 5000 (64-, 66-); Intoximeter EC/IR (EC/IR II coming soon), RBT IV. 20 minute observation period before test.

IN
1
BAC Datamaster. 20 minute observation period before test. Arresting officer may elect blood, breath, or urine with as many tests of each as he chooses and failure to submit to any deemed a refusal. No right to independent test.

KS
1
Intoxilyzer 5000 (66- ) currently in use as well as Intoxilyzer 8000. 8000 is in early stages of a two year phase-in to replace the 5000. 20 minute observation prior to test.

KY
1
Intoxilyzer 5000EN. 20 minute observation period before test.

LA

Intoxilyzer 5000EN.

MA
2
Draeger 7110 MK III-C. 15 minute observation/deprivation period before test. No statutory time limit for samples to be provided but machine cycle normally 2 - 3 minutes. Samples must be within .02 of each other.

MD
2
Intoximeter EC/IR. Blows must be within .02 of each other or a 3rd is required. If 3rd blow does not achieve .02 margin, all tests deemed invalid. Machine software requires blows to occur within 3 minutes of start of test sequence. 20 minute observation period before testing.

ME
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 EN. Four attempts permitted to get two results within .02 of one another.

MI
2*
Datamaster. Regulations require two blows, 2nd coming at least two minutes after first, but courts have opined only one is necessary for “validity” so two blows not commonly seen. 15 minute observation period prior to 1st test, and 1st result must come within 2 minutes after initiation of test sequence.

MN
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 (68-). 2 consecutive samples, 4 minutes for each sample to be obtained and samples must be within .02 of each other.

MO
2*
Intoxilyzer 5000, Datamaster. Officer may require 2 breath samples, but common practice is for 1. Implied Consent advisement does not inform that two tests are required, nor does it advise that if two are requested and only one is provided, suspension for refusal will occur. No agreement is required between the two tests if two are administered. 15 minute observation period before test.

MS
2
Intoxilyzer 8000

MT
1
Intoxilyzer 5000 (68-). 15 minute observation period before test.

NC
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 (66-, 68-). Blows must be within .02 of each other. 15 minute observation period before test.

ND



NE
1
Datamaster CDM, Intoximeters 3000 also approved.

NH
2
Intoxilyzer 5000EN. Both blows must be within .02 of each other. If not, additional tests occur until two within .02 are achieved. Breath sample captured for independent retest. 20 minute observation period before test.

NJ
2
Breathalyzer 900, 900A - 2 blows 6 - 15 minutes apart. Alcotest 7110 MK IIIC - 2 tests at least 2 minutes apart. 20 minute observation period by custom, not statute or regulation.

NM
2
Intoxilyzer (8000, 5000), RBT IV. 2 breath samples must be taken within 15 minutes of one another following a 20 minute deprivation period.

NV
2
Intoxilyzer 5000EN. Samples must be within .02 of each other or a 3rd sample is obtained. If that does not fall within limits, blood draw authorized. If suspect fails to provide additional samples, 1st may be used, but forced blood draw is then permissible. No prescribed time limit to obtain samples, but 3rd and 4th must be within 2 hours for per se charge.

NY
1
Datamaster, Draeger 7110. 15 minute observation period before test by administrative rule, but 20 minute period typically used across entire state.

OH
1
Datamaster, Datamaster CDM, Intoxilyzer 5000 (66-, 68-, EN), 8000. 20 minute observation period before test.

OK
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 (66-, EN). Both blows must be within .03 of each other and lowest value is used. All results go to 2 decimal points only. 15 minute observation period before test.

OR
1*
Intoxilyzer 5000 (68-). 15 minute observation period prior to test. *Intoxilyzer 8000 being implemented and will require two blows, two minutes apart with samples being within 10% of one another.

PA
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 (all models), BAC Datamaster. 20 minute observation period before test. No specified time between breath samples. Breath samples must be within .02 of each other. Emerging movement towards blood testing.

RI
2
Intoxilyzer 5000. Both blows must be 30 minutes apart.

SC
1
Datamaster. Entire breath test process must be videotaped, including implied consent warning and 20 minute observation period prior to test.

SD



TN
1
Intoximeters EC/IR and EC/IR II and, to a limited extent, Intoxilyzer 1400

TX
2
Intoxilyzer 5000 EN. 15 minute observation/deprivation period before test. Breath samples must be given within three minutes of each other and must be within .02 of each other.

UT
1
Intoxilyzer 5000, 8000. 15 minute observation period before test.

VA
2
Intoxilyzer 5000. Both blows within three minutes of each other based on machine software, though no legal requirement for time of obtaining samples. Blows must be within .02 of each other or a third blow is required. 20 minute observation period before test.

VT
1
Datamaster. 15 minute observation period before the test is a byproduct of both common law and regulation.

WA
2
Datamaster and Datamaster CDM

WI
2
Intoximeters EC/IR. Both blows must be within .02 of each other. 20 minute observation period prior to testing.

WV
1
Intoximeters EC/IR II. 20 minute observation period prior to testing.

WY
2
Intoximeters EC/IR. Three tries to get two blows within .02 of each other. 15 minute observation period prior to testing.




sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net

San Diego DUI attorneys hear that DUI police arrested a 50-year-old woman on Sunday driving with a blood-alcohol reading almost five times the level at which Florida law presumes a driver is impaired, according to San Diego DUI attorneys .

Roberta Lea Conley of 1220 U.S. 41 S., Ruskin, was stopped by deputies at U.S. 301 South and Janes Drive after authorities saw her 1990 Chevrolet van weave across the centerline several times, San Diego DUI attorneys said.

DUI police said Conley's performance on a sobriety test was "unsatisfactory." Deputies asked her to take breath tests, which revealed blood-alcohol levels of 0.359 and 0.341, according to an arrest report. Florida law presumes a driver is impaired at 0.08.

She was arrested and charged with driving with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 0.20.

This is Conley's third DUI arrest, per San Diego DUI attorneys .

"I don't know about a record, but that is up there," DUI police said of Conley's blood-alcohol level.

Conley was taken to Tampa General Hospital to be medically cleared, as per sheriff's office policy for a person with such a high blood-alcohol level, San Diego DUI attorneys said.

She was then taken to Orient Road Jail, San Diego DUI lawyers said.

She was freed after posting $2,000 bail.

sandiegoduilawyer.com/blog

San Diego DUI lawyers hear that MOTORISTS had to swerve to avoid a man asleep at the controls of a motorised wheelchair on a north Queensland highway.

Police who breath-tested him allegedly found him to be six times the legal blood alcohol limit.

Police found the 64-year-old man asleep in his wheelchair in a turning lane on the Captain Cook Highway at Stratford north of Cairns on Friday morning.

Passing police noticed him slumped in the wheelchair and stopped to help.

They breathalysed him when they smelt alcohol on him.

He allegedly blew .301, more than six times the legal limit.

He told police he was going 14km to Trinity Beach to visit a friend, most of it on the four-lane highway.

"We'll allege he placed himself in a very dangerous situation," police spokesman Bob Waters said.

"People should be aware that drink-driving laws cover these kinds of vehicles, but also others like horses and bicycles.

The man will appear in Cairns Magistrates Court on July 7.

sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net

San Diego DUI lawyers ask: What is up with pro athletes who get caught drinking and driving?

Like no one's ever sat them down and said: "Hey buddy, you make millions of dollars a year. You can call a cab."

The latest player to have some beef against the cab industry is Jevon Kearse, who was seen speeding and swerving several times while traveling in his car in Nashville early Sunday.

The officer who pulled the Titans over said Kearse had slurred speach, red eyes, and smelled of alcohol. Kearse also reportedly refused a breath test, which is always a fantastic idea. Kearse said he only had one vodka red bull.

It's already been a drunk-tastic offseason for a number of players. Cedric Benson has single-handedly completed two-thirds of the drunk driving trifecta by getting caught boozing while boating and driving. Here's hoping he can get one while flying. Lofa Tatupu was also hit with a DUI. Same with Dwayne Jarrett, Roscoe Parish, Brent Hawkins, Jacoby Jones, and Daren Stone.

By the way, if you want to see what other kind of fun NFL players have been getting into, just check out the great work by the San Diego Union Tribune which has been tracking every NFL arrest/citation since 2000.

SanDiegoDUI.com

San Diego DUI attorneys note that Hensley & Co., one of the nation's major beer wholesalers, has brought the family of Cindy McCain wealth, prestige and influence in Phoenix, but it could also create conflicts for her husband, Sen. John McCain, if he is elected president in November.

Hensley, founded by Cindy McCain's late father, holds federal and state licenses to distribute beer and lobbies regulatory agencies on alcohol issues that involve public health and safety.

The company has opposed such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving in fighting proposed federal rules requiring alcohol content information on every package of beer, wine and liquor.

Its executives, including John McCain's son Andrew, have written at least 10 letters in recent years to the Treasury Department, have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a beer industry political action committee, and hold a seat on the board of the politically powerful National Beer Wholesalers Assn.

Hensley has run afoul of health advocacy groups that have tried to rein in appeals to young drinkers. For example, the company distributes caffeinated alcoholic drinks that public health groups say put young and underage consumers at risk by disguising the effects of intoxication.

The involvement of McCain's family in federal regulatory issues could create a conflict of interest for a future McCain administration, according to advocacy groups and political analysts. McCain has recused himself for many years on alcohol issues in the Senate. As president, however, McCain would face far more difficulty distancing himself from an issue with such broad scope.

Cindy McCain holds the title of company chairwoman and controls about 68% of the privately held company stock with her children and the senator's son, according to records at the Arizona Department of Liquor License and Control. Cindy and John McCain keep their finances separate, and he has no stake or role in Hensley.

In an interview in May, she said she knew "everything that is going on" and communicated with her executive team every day. If her husband is elected president and she retains her role at Hensley, she will set a precedent for outside corporate activity by a first lady.

Political analysts said they were astounded that the presumptive Republican nominee had not already addressed the issue.

"You can't run a beer company out of the White House," said Samuel L. Popkin, a political science professor at UC San Diego. "You can't run any company from the White House. McCain is leaving a live hand grenade on the table, a major embarrassment."

Public interest groups that lobby on alcohol issues say it will clearly be inappropriate for the McCain family to continue running or owning the company if McCain is elected.

Indeed, apart from its potential to create a conflict of interest, the mere ownership of the beer distributor could turn off some social conservatives and those who object to alcohol use.

About a third of Americans abstain from alcohol, and half either abstain or consume less than a drink a month, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

For some, abstinence -- and a disdain for the industry -- is religion-based. Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, which has more than 16 million members, expressed "total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing and consuming of alcoholic beverages" in the church's most recent resolution on the matter.

"I am sure for some individual Southern Baptists, [the McCain family's involvement in the beer business] would be a concern," said Roger S. Oldham, vice president of Southern Baptist Convention relations.

A close look at Hensley shows that the company has opposed changes that critics of the beer industry say were intended to help Americans drink responsibly.

Public interest groups have petitioned the Treasury Department in recent years to require that every container of beer, wine or liquor carry a label disclosing the amount of alcohol in one standard serving.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Marin Institute, the Consumer Federation of America and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, among others, assert that such information would help Americans drink responsibly and avoid drunk driving. The label would also contain nutrition information such as calories.

But the beer industry has argued that such labels would confuse consumers. With backing from Hensley and others, it has persuaded the Treasury Department to withdraw the alcohol content disclosure from any future label requirement.

Similar letters were written by Chief Executive Robert M. Delgado and other senior executives. Hensley executives have also contributed heavily to the National Beer Wholesalers Assn., which operates the nation's seventh-largest political action committee and has argued against the label. Delgado alone has donated more than $20,000 to the group since 2004.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving MADD said the organization would be watching carefully if a future McCain administration exercised influence on any alcohol issues.

www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles

San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 24 years of experience.



Known as the "DMV Guru," Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his law practice to aggressively defending those accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. He has successfully saved the driving privileges of many clients in the past year alone. http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/



Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html








Contact a San Diego DUI Lawyer:

San Diego DUI Lawyer

San Diego DUI

California DUI Attorney

San Diego DUI Help

http://www.google.com


http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html


http://www.yahoo.com

A drunk driving charge starts with an embarrassing arrest and the potential publication of your name in the Friday cop blotter in local papers. Next is an appearance in court and, if you’re convicted, hefty fines, legal expenses and plenty of time spent clearing your good name.

But that doesn’t stop many drunk drivers.

In 2007 alone, Pitkin County saw 177 driving under the influence charges out of a total of 488 traffic infractions heard in Pitkin County Court, according to statistics with the Colorado Judicial Branch.

Police, sheriff’s deputies and local prosecutors throw lots of resources at drunk drivers, and say that strict laws, enforcement and growing awareness all help save lives.

Still, three out of every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related car crash in their lives, according to statistics with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

“Statistically the highest threat to your life in the city of Aspen or Pitkin County is a drunk driver in your lane,” said Sheriff Bob Braudis.

There were 226 alcohol-related driving fatalities in Colorado in 2006, making up 42 percent of the state total driving deaths, statistics that align with the national average (nationwide 17,602 people died in alcohol-related crashes, making up 41 percent of highway fatalities).

“Every deputy knows that a big part of their job is patrolling and pulling over any vehicle with probable cause,” Braudis said, and that includes anything from weaving and speeding to a broken headlight.

Aspen officer Rick Magnuson, who regularly patrols Main Street in Aspen — mainly after the dinner hour or after the bars close — said the DUI process usually starts with a basic traffic stop. The moment Magnuson or any other police officer approach your car window, they’re looking for signs that you’ve been drinking, he said.

Red, watery eyes, admission that you’ve “had a few,” or fumbling when reaching for your license and registration are all signs that you might be impaired, Magnuson said.

If he detects probable cause, then Magnuson will ask you to step out of the car and perform a roadside test. If you fail, he’ll slap on the cuffs, put you in the cruiser and read you the “express consent” form giving you the choice of a blood test or breathalyzer test to determine if you are intoxicated.

If you refuse the test, you lose your license for one year.

Driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more earns a drunk driving charge and likely loss of your driver’s license, a standard that federal legislators changed from 0.15 BAC in recent years. Colorado also has a lesser charge of “driving while ability impaired” at 0.05 BAC.

For a typical 180-pound man, drinking 4.5 regular-sized (12-ounce) beers in one hour means you’re a DUI candidate; 2.5 beers in an hour and you’re eligible for a DWAI, according to experts.

A petite woman weighing 110 pounds would be illegal to drive at a little more than one beer and a half per hour.

After your arrest (you’ll likely be released into the custody of a friend unless you have prior arrests), you’ll enter the court system.

It all might sound like a witch hunt, but deputy district attorney Gail Nichols said the laws are strict for a reason.

The drivers in two recent vehicular homicide cases in Pitkin County, for example, had clean driving records. But their first brush with drunk driving, Nichols said, ended in someone else’s death.



Mounting a defense
But what are your rights and what should you do if you’re ever pulled over?

Just ask Dan Shipp, a Basalt-based attorney who specializes in drunk driving charges.

“It’s not against the law to drink and drive,” Shipp said. “It’s against the law to drive when your ability is impaired.”

With his deep Mississippi accent untouched by years living in Colorado, the barrel-chested Shipp dresses sharp on court days, wearing a shirt with cufflinks, suit jacket, cowboy boots and carrying a wide-brim cowboy hat he hangs in the corner of the courtroom.

But the flamboyant attorney rarely takes cases to trial (usually just four or five cases out of more than 120 statewide each year), he said. Instead, he fights the minutia of any DUI case, often earning his clients plea deals on lesser charges or getting charges dismissed on technicalities.

“Cops get sloppy,” Shipp said. And often officers haven’t performed required recertifications for DUI investigation or operating a breathalyzer.

And that’s where he goes for the jugular, saying that, for many people, the loss of a license means the loss of a livelihood or even family.

Shipp recently took a DUI to trial and won on a technicality, earning his client, an Idaho man, a guilty plea on a lesser alcohol-related charge because the district attorney failed to provide a certification form for a police officer testifying.

Shipp tells his clients to be polite and respectful if ever pulled over — “if you’ve been a jerk with the cops, they’ll keep you” — but not to give police any evidence and to remove any probable cause by being better drivers and ensuring their vehicle is registered and that the headlights and taillights work.

If you have been drinking, brush your teeth or eat some peanut butter, Shipp said. Police are looking for real drunk drivers, the kind who shouldn’t be on the road, Shipp added, not someone who’s just had a couple of drinks with dinner.

“You are not required to participate in any field sobriety test,” Shipp said. “And about 30 percent of the population is not going to pass the field sobriety test on their best day.”

Blowing a roadside breathalyzer, standing to allow officers to check for nystagmus — a shaking of the eyes indicative of drunkenness — or doing the one-leg stand or the “walk-and-turn” is only giving evidence to police, Shipp said.

Shipp said nystagmus, for example, can be caused by any of 39 conditions — from head injury to syphilis — and that most people can’t stand on one leg or walk a line regardless of their alcohol intake.

“The burden is on the state to prove the person was intoxicated,” Shipp said, and he does anything he can to poke holes in the credibility of police allegations.

Shipp claims that law enforcement officers often make drivers feel that roadside sobriety tests are required and are aggressive with defendants. He tells clients to insist on a blood test if arrested — something Shipp can later challenge — but never a breathalyzer.

“Don’t ever blow in anything,” Shipp said.

Blowing a breathalyzer gives police an immediate indication of how intoxicated you are and an unscrupulous cop might write a police report to match the machine reading. If you give blood, however, police must wait for the lab results and Shipp said they are more likely to write a report based solely on their observations.

If you agree to the test, your license will be returned to you, and if you’ve got a sober friend to pick you up, you’re free.

Shipp estimated the cost of a first DUI at more than $8,800, including court costs, an attorney and higher insurance premiums.

Taking a case to trial can cost from $19,000 to $25,000, money that many people are willing to pay to hang on to their driver’s licenses.



Into court
Weeks after a local DUI arrest, you’ll face Judge Erin Fernandez Ely in county court.

Ely knows a lot about substance abuse; she sees it in her court in cases ranging from straight DUI to domestic violence or assault — all connected to drinking and drugs.

“Forty percent of fatal accidents are with drunk drivers,” Ely told the court recently, something she called an “overwhelming statistic.”

To the judge, it’s about treating the problem and not the symptoms; she estimated that about 15 percent of cases in front of her are “chronic” cases of repeat offenders. The rest she sees only one time.

On your first day in court, deputy district attorney Richard Nedlin will offer you a plea deal — often to a lesser charge of DWAI from a DUI — and you can be sentenced on the spot, or ask for a continuance and appear later with an attorney.

Ely relies on a handful of creative sentencing options, she said, doling out both punishment and a chance for people to change for the better through community service. She can also mandate drug and alcohol education classes.

She sends both first-timers with a high BAC (above 2.0) and second offenders to a drug and alcohol evaluation, and relies on the Right Door, a local nonprofit that fights substance abuse, to help people who need it. Many repeat offenders sign a contract with the Right Door and agree to a set of actions, including counseling sessions, regular calls to check-in with case managers, required proof of attendance at 12-step meetings and compliance with random urinary analysis tests.

A representative of the Right Door attends county court sessions and testifies about defendants’ performance on drug and alcohol tests and court-mandated appointments.

During a recent session, one woman had completed her requirements and asked to be removed from Right Door supervision.

“Can I be released from the Right Door?” asked Ashley Ondo, who’d answered to drunk driving charges.

“She’s been compliant,” said Mike Seery of the Right Door.

On the same day, Judge Ely directed a handful of other defendants to the Right Door, and Seery handed out business cards.

“They’re a great resource and they’re free,” Judge Ely told one defendant, a first-time drunk driver who was sent to an alcohol evaluator and given 18 months of unsupervised probation.

Judge Ely also sends many defendants to Alcoholics Anonymous and asks how they liked the AA meetings when they report back to court.

“They come back and tell me what it’s like,” Ely said. “It may enlighten them. They seem to get a lot out of it.”

“I’m digging a bigger hole,” admitted one young defendant, Kevin Johnson, during a recent court hearing.

“And it’s filled with alcohol,” Ely replied, before sentencing Johnson to a three-meeting assessment with the Right Door and compliance with a sobriety contract.

“The Right Door may have a better solution” than the standard classes and probation, Ely added.

At the same May hearing, Ely sentenced Todd Lee Shipley, who was coming off more than a year of work-release after a string of drunk driving and other drinking-related charges, to work with the Right Door.

“The structure of jail may be why you’re succeeding,” Ely told Shipley.

She suggested he find new habits, new friends and a new life, and said the Right Door would be an important piece for the “habitual traffic offender” with four DUIs.

“At some point — and this is that point — I give you this chance,” Ely told Shipley.

“There’s no question that alcohol consumption is out for you.”

Shipley agreed to an evaluation and recommendation from the Right Door.

“I hope I’m doing the right thing,” Ely said. “Good luck.”

Ely said later that she believes in the Golden Rule (as in “do unto others”) and restorative justice, trying rehabilitate the victim, the community and the offender.

Ely said “community participation” is the key.

Fines for a first DUI range from $300 to $1,000, plus typically 48 hours of public service, and fines for subsequent offenses start at $500.

A second conviction or a charge with a BAC of 0.20 or greater means mandatory time in jail (often work release or “day reporting,” where offenders must physically appear at the jail each day). Ely routinely waives or reduces the jail time, but often uses it as a tool to get people help or show them where they’re headed if they continue drinking and driving.

Also, she asks many defendants to donate to the Right Door and sentences them to prove attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.



Avoid the stop
So, a few drinks with dinner caused you embarrassment, wasted your time and cost you thousands of dollars. But area law enforcement officials say it just doesn’t have to be that way.

“The alternatives to driving here are broader than anywhere,” Sheriff Braudis said.

Anyone who thinks they’ve had too much to drink can get a ride on a Roaring Fork Transportation Authority bus or take a free ride with Tipsy Taxi.

Education in recent years, however, has been successful, Braudis said. And he’s seen a decrease in drunk drivers on area roads, particularly among teens. Braudis chalks it up to strict punishments and fear of losing a license.

Aspen might be known as a party town, Braudis said, but it doesn’t have to be a DUI town. That’s up to people making intelligent choices.

sandiegodui.com

San Diego dui attorney news

In just its first year of sales, TruTouch Technologies Inc. hit $1.6 million in revenue.

The Albuquerque startup, which formed in 2005, created an intoxication-testing device that uses a simple flash of light to detect alcohol, eliminating the need for invasive and time-consuming blood, breath or urine tests.

The company launched its product early last year, and sales took off immediately, said President and CEO Jim McNally.

"We're projecting at least 50 percent top-line growth this year," McNally said. "We're thrilled with the response we've had."

The company sold about 100 machines to correction-related institutions nationwide last year that deal with alcohol abuse, including residential treatment centers, probation-connected programs, and minimum security jails and prisons with furlough programs.

In May, the New Mexico Department of Transportation's Traffic Safety Bureau bought six machines that it plans to roll out this month at metro court in Albuquerque and at probation and parole offices in San Juan, Sandoval and Lea counties to test DWI convicts, said Rachel O'Conner, New Mexico's DWI czar.

"TruTouch's technology holds a lot of promise for reducing DWI in New Mexico and for addressing other alcohol-related issues, such as alcohol in the workplace," O'Conner said. "We want to promote and support new technology like this in the field."

The initial six-unit roll out will allow participating counties to collect data and gauge the effectiveness of the machines during the next year to determine if more machines should be placed around the state, said Traffic Safety Bureau Director Mike Sandoval.

"If it works well, we'll buy more units for more counties and encourage the counties themselves to buy units," Sandoval said.

The exact price of the device is confidential because marketing strategies allow for bulk rates and discounts, McNally said. But each unit goes for several thousand dollars, and TruTouch offers leasing and rental contracts.

The device, which cradles the arm of the person being tested, shines infrared light on the subject's skin to measure alcohol levels in the bloodstream. It produces results in about one minute, compared with 20 minutes for a breath test and days for a standard blood or urine test.

The rapidity and non-invasive nature of the test could be a major boon for law enforcement against DWI, said Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White. The Sheriff's Department purchased three units this year for use at DWI checkpoints, making it the first police force in the nation to use the technology.

"I believe this machine may just revolutionize the way we conduct DWI investigations in this country," White said.

The data collected will not be admissible in court until the New Mexico judiciary accepts test results as evidence. But the machines will be used simultaneously with breath tests to compare results and gather information for eventual court certification, White said.

TruTouch is working to make its machines compatible with car inter-lock devices. Those systems rely on breath tests to stop DWI convicts from driving, but users can sidestep that by asking someone else to breathe into the machine. In contrast, the TruTouch device will simultaneously identify the person being tested.

When that becomes available, O'Conner said it could open a huge market.

"A race is on nationwide to create smart-car technology that both identifies drivers and determines if they're drunk to respond accordingly," O'Conner said. "If the system does that effectively, I think it would be in high demand."

Meanwhile, TruTouch is launching a device for the workplace to open more markets, McNally said.

The company upgraded its machine to interface with a business' computer network. Once an employee swipes an ID card, test results are automatically logged in company computers.

"It will allow employers to screen workers in a dignified manner to guarantee an alcohol-free workplace," McNally said. "We'll begin selling that device this fall."

TruTouch has received more than $5 million in private equity since 2005 from local venture capital firms.

Since last year, the company has doubled its staff from 10 to 20.

Illinois is a very interesting state working the other way as well.

In Illinois, a first DUI offense receives almost identical punishment as does a California first DUI offense: Fine, school, restricted license, etc. BUT upon successful completion the DUI case is dismissed. HOWEVER, the dismissed DUI is used for priorability if a new DUI arrest occurs.

Because of this, Illinois automatically and IRREVOCABLY assumes ANY DUI conviction for a DUI must be a second DUI offense. The Illinois State Licensing Agency then treats the DUI in Illinois as a second which is virtually identical to California's second DUI conviction (i.e. one year license loss).

So an Illinois license holder who gets a DUI in California MUST get a wet reckless or better or else they can get really hurt in Illinois.

Illinois incorrectly views a first time California DUI conviction as a second DUI conviction for Illinois license suspension purposes.

Try to show the California court the law of Illinois, along with a letter from an Illinois DUI attorney so the California DUI court will force a wet reckless reduction.

sandiegoduilawyer.com

San Diego DUI lawyers report that Highland Police target impaired drivers

Upon entering the California DUI checkpoint, an officer will probably point a flashlight in your direction and ask for your drivers license and proof of registration, according to San Diego DUI attorneys.

If your documents are in order, your vehicle passes a quick visual inspection, and if there are no other signs that you under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the officer will wave you through. On the other hand, if your documents are missing or expired or if there is another reason for the officer to suspect your driving may be impaired, you will be waved to go to another area for further investigation, per San Diego DUI lawyers.

This was the experience of 432 drivers last Saturday night at a DUI/Drivers License checkpoint set up by the Highland Police Department on Saturday, June 14, from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m., near the corner of Victoria Avenue and Millar Street, just south of Highland Avenue, according to San Diego DUI lawyers.

At the checkpoint, those suspected of being under the influence are asked to exit their vehicles. These individuals may be given a field sobriety test. The officer will watch to see how the suspect responds to questions and physical tests to determine if the responses are slow due to impairment from drugs or alcohol. The driver may be given a Breathalyzer test that measures the amount of alcohol in their system. If it is over .08, the driver will be arrested, handcuffed and led to the booking area where paperwork will be completed and blood will be taken. Then they are taken to jail where first time offenders face a future of probation, alcohol classes, a suspended drivers license and heavy fines of over $1,000, say San Diego DUI lawyers.

According to Sergeant Don Lupear, the checkpoint was held to educate the public on the dangers of impaired driving and to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol and drug related crashes. The objective of the DUI checkpoint is to send a clear message to those who are considering driving a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol and/or drugs, ‘Drive Impaired--Get Arrested' per San Diego DUI lawyers.

San Diego DUI lawyers say funding for this operation was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
sandiegodui.com

SAN DIEGO DUI attorney news

www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

San Diego DUI police officer Aaron Mansker knew he was careless and in violation of police training standards the morning he shot former Chargers linebacker Steve Foley, according to the officer's deposition, presented at Thursday's opening statements of the civil trial.

Mansker was speeding in his personal vehicle; he did not show a badge to identify himself as an officer; and he ordered Foley to stop instead of following him at a safe distance – all violations of the officer's training, said Harvey Levine, Foley's attorney.

“These policies and procedures are designed to prevent exactly what happened to Mr. Foley,” said Levine, who called the entire incident tragic and “totally unnecessary”.

He repeatedly told jurors at downtown's Hall of Justice that Mansker did not believe Foley had a weapon the morning Foley was shot.

Mansker shot Foley after the football player drove with a female companion about 3 a.m. on Sept. 3, 2006, from downtown San Diego to Poway. The shooting happened in a cul-de-sac on Travertine Court near Foley's home in Poway.

Foley was shot twice in the back of his left knee and hip. The injuries ultimately ended his career. Levine said the shot was caused by a hollow-point bullet, which is intended to maximize damage by tearing as much tissue as possible. The bullet shattered an artery in his knee, he said. Doctors used a vein in Foley's right knee to reconstruct an artery on his other leg.
Levine showed jurors photos of Foley as a child and a video showing highlights of Foley's career.

Foley, wearing a black shirt and brown pinstripe suit, bowed his head and cried during the video footage. He later broke down again, wiping his face with a tissue, when Levine presented photographs of the knee injuries.

Levine is expected to finish his opening statements on Monday. The courtroom will be dark on Friday. He will be followed by attorneys representing Coronado and Mansker, who will begin their opening statements Monday. Foley's mother and Chargers running back LaDanian Tomlinson are among the witnesses expected to testify during the trial.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified damages for past and future lost earnings. The attorneys said they are no longer seeking punitive damages against Mansker.

Levine said Foley has incurred $434,000 in medical bills. Foley is expected to have $200,000 in future medical expenses.

The trial got under way mid-Thursday afternoon – about a year and a half after the complaint was filed.

Last week, San Diego Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss granted several motions brought by the city of Coronado and Mansker to exclude information about the officer's family and employment history during the civil trial.

That includes information about Mansker's father, who was killed by a drunken driver when Mansker was 13, and other incidents in which the officer followed motorists whom he suspected of being "DUI" or driving under the influence.

Mansker was a 23-year-old rookie officer when he shot Foley. At the time, he was off duty, out of uniform and driving his own car.

Mansker said he started following Foley near downtown San Diego because he suspected Foley of drunk driving.

Foley pled to a San Diego DUI - related charge and was placed on five years' probation.

He was released from the Chargers last year and now lives in the Houston area, where he cares for his 11-year-old daughter, according to his lawyers.

A San Diego DUI - drunk driver allegedly crashed into a telephone pole early Thursday morning, prompting officials to consider closing nearby Highway 78 due to concerns about downed electrical wires, San Diego DUI lawyers said.

Ultimately, though, the officials kept the highway open after electrical crews stabilized wires on both sides of the highway, said San Diego DUI attorneys.

The one-car crash occurred just before 2 a.m., Ray said. Steven Stewart, Jr., a 25-year-old U.S. Marine and Vista resident, apparently sped through a stop sign at Pomelo Drive while heading west on Hacienda Drive, San Diego DUI lawyers said.

He then veered into the eastbound lane and ran his car, a 2003 Nissan Maxima, off the north side of the road and into a roadside telephone pole which sheared off and came to rest atop his car, San Diego DUI attorneys said. Another nearby telephone pole sustained damage from being hit by the first pole, he said. Electrical lines running from the poles overhang Highway 78, San Diego DUI lawyers said.

Stewart and a passenger suffered only minor injuries but were both charged with criminal offenses. Stewart was booked into Vista Jail on a misdemeanor drunken-driving charge, while his unnamed passenger was charged with public drunkenness, San Diego DUI attorneys said.

Crews from San Diego Gas & Electric Co. responded to the scene, Ray said. The task of repairing the wires was made more difficult because the telephone pole was resting atop Stewart's car, he said. Crews fixed the wires and may do additional work in the near future, San Diego DUI lawyers are told.


SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/blog

DUI attorneys report District Attorney Robert Beckett has been cited on suspicion of DUI - drunk driving after crashing cars twice in six hours on the same California desert highway.

Beckett was not seriously hurt in either drunk driving crash, although both vehicles overturned and were badly damaged, DUI attorneys said.

The first crash, reported at 1:35 p.m. Sunday, involved a Nye County-owned 2003 Ford Expedition that crashed off Highway 127 near Shoshone, California, DUI attorneys report.

Six hours later, Beckett failed a blood-alcohol breath test and was issued a summons for driving while intoxicated after the second crash, California DUI attorneys said.

Beckett, 49, has not issued a comment in regards to these citations, DUI attorneys are told.

He is currently a candidate for a six-year term as a Nevada state judge according to DUI attorneys.

San Diego DUI attorney news

It only takes a few seconds of relapsed concentration to drive completely out of a lane according to David Dinges, a scientist from Penn State in an interview on "CBS News," and those few seconds have proven to be all a driver needs to take their eyes off the road and fixate them to their mobile phones.

In response to research conducted in recent years, lawmakers in 17 different states have either begun seriously considering, fighting for or passing laws that ban text messaging while driving. While five states -- California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington -- have already enacted bans on using hand held phones while driving, only three states have enacted laws banning their citizens from text messaging while driving, according to the Governors' Highway Safety Association. Washington, Minnesota and New Jersey have paved the way for text messaging bans according to the GHSA's Web site, but many believe the battle is nowhere near won.

Frank Drews, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Utah, took part in a research project that shows using a cell phone while driving increases your chances of an accident five-fold and can be even more dangerous than drunk driving.

"As a society, we have agreed on not tolerating the risk associated with drunk driving. This study shows us that somebody who is conversing on a cell phone is exposing him or herself and others to a similar risk … Cell phones actually are a higher risk," Drews said.

The study consisted of 40 research subjects who were put through certain distractions while driving using a simulator. Some of the participants were on cell phones, others were at the legal alcohol limit of .08 and others were put through random and every day distractions. As Drews explained, cell phones proved to be a much higher risk than the other distractions imposed on the subjects.

Another study conducted by Nationwide Insurance showed that an estimated 20 percent of drivers are sending or receiving text messages while driving. That number greatly increases to 66 percent when the age group of 18 to 24 is segregated. These numbers don't exactly match up to those of a Harris Interactive Poll conducted in August of 2007 which stated that 9 out of 10 American adults believe that sending text messages or e-mails while driving is "distracting, dangerous and should be outlawed."

Since the addition of the "texting" option on mobile phones in the early 1990s and even earlier with using numbers to spell out words on pagers in the late 1980s, text messaging has become a major part of communication in the 21st century. The New York Times reported a total of 158 billion text messages being sent in 2006 alone, doubling the total from 2005. As far as proof that cell phones cause car accidents, crash reports now include a line for troopers to record if a cell phone was in use at the time of the accident and AAA estimates almost half of the 6 million crashes in the country each year are caused by drivers who are distracted by cell phones.

The growing technological advances of cell phones to accommodate "texters" along with the growing number of high profile accidents proven to be caused by text messaging while driving, are what legislators cite as their reasons for pushing the urgent passing of the new laws.

Arkansas legislators have not taken the steps that neighboring state Tennessee has by collecting official crash data including crashes caused by cell phone use, but has taken more steps than other neighboring state Missouri which has not banned school bus drivers from using cell phones while on the job, according to the GHSAs Web site. Arkansas Senator Kim Hendron has been working to pass laws specifically aimed towards teenagers and cell phone use while driving.

"The cell phone is a good tool and a good thing to help with security,'' said Sen. Kim Hendren, R-Gravette. "If you're going to do it, for heaven's sake, pull over to the side of the road and use it.''

Fourteen states have already passed laws regarding teenagers using cell phones while driving and Hendren's law would carry a possible $50 fine for second time offenders.

Many studies have been done to attempt to prove that text messaging and using a cell phone while driving is extremely dangerous, and states around the country seem to be noticing the dangers.

The Garberville California Highway Patrol office investigated four traffic collisions this past weekend related to the Redwood Run, none of which were alcohol related, a news release stated.

There were 16 alcohol and/or drug-related arrests made, the CHP reported. The Redwood Run, Garberville Rodeo and South Fork High School graduation all took place this past weekend, the first time all three events have been scheduled for the same weekend.

The Garberville CHP was out in force, with every available officer patrolling the roadways, the CHP said. “The increase in DUI arrests and reduction in collisions can be attributed to the increase of officers patrolling the roadways,” the CHP said.

sandiegoduihelp.com

California DUI attorney news

Over 700 Vehicles passed through the California DUI Checkpoint in Angels Camp on Friday Night. An Unlucky 13 of those drivers required further testing and of those 2 were arrested for California DUI . This was a combined California DUI operation between the California Highway Patrol and the Angels Camp Police Department. It was conducted to remind drivers the risks, according to San Diego California DUI lawyers.

There are risks of California DUI - driving while intoxicated. These California DUI risks are physical as well as California DUI financial risks. California DUI - driving while impaired is especially risky in a rural area. With our majority of twisty two lane roads one small lapse in attention can, and has ended many lives.

Calaveras and other foothill and mountain counties require an even higher level of awareness and alertness while driving, per California DUI attorneys.

sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net

California DUI codes and related alcohol statutes

California Vehicle Code Section 23152.
(a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by
weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol
per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of
breath.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after the driving.

(c) It is unlawful for any person who is addicted to the use of
any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a
person who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved
pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of
Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

(d) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.04 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor
vehicle, as defined in Section 15210.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after the driving.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1992, and
shall remain operative until the director determines that federal
regulations adopted pursuant to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.) contained in Section
383.51 or 391.15 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations do
not require the state to prohibit operation of commercial vehicles
when the operator has a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood
of 0.04 percent by weight or more.

(f) The director shall submit a notice of the determination under
subdivision (e) to the Secretary of State, and this section shall be
repealed upon the receipt of that notice by the Secretary of State.



California Vehicle Code section 23153.
(a) It is unlawful for any person, while under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle and
concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed
by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately
causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.

(b) It is unlawful for any person, while having 0.08 percent or
more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle
and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty
imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect
proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.

In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after driving.

(c) In proving the person neglected any duty imposed by law in
driving the vehicle, it is not necessary to prove that any specific
section of this code was violated.

(d) It is unlawful for any person, while having 0.04 percent or
more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial
motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, and concurrently to do
any act forbidden by law or neglect any duty imposed by law in
driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily
injury to any person other than the driver.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of performance of a chemical test within three
hours after driving.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1992, and
shall remain operative until the director determines that federal
regulations adopted pursuant to the Commercial Motor Vehicle Act of
1986 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.) contained in Section 383.51 or
391.15 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations do not require
the state to prohibit operation of commercial vehicles when the
operator has a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood of 0.04
percent by weight or more.

(f) The director shall submit a notice of the determination under
subdivision (e) to the Secretary of State, and this section shall be
repealed upon the receipt of that notice by the Secretary of State.




California Vehicle Code section 23158.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, only a
licensed physician and surgeon, registered nurse, licensed vocational
nurse, duly licensed clinical laboratory scientist or clinical
laboratory bioanalyst, a person who has been issued a "certified
phlebotomy technician" certificate pursuant to Section 1246 of the
Business and Professions Code, unlicensed laboratory personnel
regulated pursuant to Sections 1242, 1242.5, and 1246 of the Business
and Professions Code, or certified paramedic acting at the request
of a peace officer may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining
the alcoholic content therein. This limitation does not apply to the
taking of breath specimens. An emergency call for paramedic
services takes precedence over a peace officer's request for a
paramedic to withdraw blood for determining its alcoholic content. A
certified paramedic shall not withdraw blood for this purpose unless
authorized by his or her employer to do so.

(b) The person tested may, at his or her own expense, have a
licensed physician and surgeon, registered nurse, licensed vocational
nurse, duly licensed clinical laboratory scientist or clinical
laboratory bioanalyst, person who has been issued a "certified
phlebotomy technician" certificate pursuant to Section 1246 of the
Business and Professions Code, unlicensed laboratory personnel
regulated pursuant to Sections 1242, 1242.5, and 1246 of the Business
and Professions Code, or any other person of his or her own choosing
administer a test in addition to any test administered at the
direction of a peace officer for the purpose of determining the
amount of alcohol in the person's blood at the time alleged as shown
by chemical analysis of his or her blood, breath, or urine. The
failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person does
not preclude the admissibility in evidence of the test taken at the
direction of a peace officer.

(c) Upon the request of the person tested, full information
concerning the test taken at the direction of the peace officer shall
be made available to the person or the person's attorney.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no licensed
physician and surgeon, registered nurse, licensed vocational nurse,
duly licensed clinical laboratory scientist or clinical laboratory
bioanalyst, person who has been issued a "certified phlebotomy
technician" certificate pursuant to Section 1246 of the Business and
Professions Code, unlicensed laboratory personnel regulated pursuant
to Sections 1242, 1242.5, and 1246 of the Business and Professions
Code, or certified paramedic, or hospital, laboratory, or clinic
employing or utilizing the services of the licensed physician and
surgeon, registered nurse, licensed vocational nurse, duly licensed
clinical laboratory scientist or clinical laboratory bioanalyst,
person who has been issued a "certified phlebotomy technician"
certificate pursuant to Section 1246 of the Business and Professions
Code, unlicensed laboratory personnel regulated pursuant to Sections
1242, 1242.5, and 1246 of the Business and Professions Code, or
certified paramedic, owning or leasing the premises on which tests
are performed, shall incur any civil or criminal liability as a
result of the administering of a blood test in a reasonable manner in
a hospital, clinical laboratory, medical clinic environment, jail,
or law enforcement facility, according to accepted venipuncture
practices, without violence by the person administering the test, and
when requested in writing by a peace officer to administer the test.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has
been issued a "certified phlebotomy technician" certificate pursuant
to Section 1246 of the Business and Professions Code and who is
authorized by this section to draw blood at the request and in the
presence of a peace officer for purposes of determining its alcoholic
content, may do so in a jail, law enforcement facility, or medical
facility, with general supervision. The "certified phlebotomy
technician" shall draw blood following the policies and procedures
approved by a physician and surgeon licensed under Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 2000) of Division 2 of the Business and
Professions Code, appropriate to the location where the blood is
being drawn and in accordance with state regulations.

(f) The Certified Phlebotomy Technician I or II shall carry a
current, valid identification card issued by the State Department of
Health Services, attesting to the technician's name, certificate
type, and effective dates of certification, when performing blood
withdrawals.

(g) As used in this section, "general supervision" means that the
supervisor of the technician is licensed under the Business and
Professions Code as a physician and surgeon, physician assistant,
clinical laboratory bioanalyst, registered nurse, or clinical
laboratory scientist, and reviews the competency of the technician
before the technician may perform blood withdrawals without direct
supervision, and on an annual basis thereafter. The supervisor is
also required to review the work of the technician at least once a
month to ensure compliance with venipuncture policies, procedures,
and regulations. The supervisor, or another person licensed as a
physician and surgeon, physician assistant, clinical laboratory
bioanalyst, registered nurse, or clinical laboratory scientist, shall
be accessible to the location where the technician is working to
provide onsite, telephone, or electronic consultation, within 30
minutes when needed.

(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the
certified phlebotomy technician who is authorized to withdraw blood
by this section at the request and in the presence of a peace officer
for purposes of determining alcoholic content to be associated with
a clinical laboratory or to be directly supervised after competency
has been established.
(i) If the test given under Section 23612 is a chemical test of
urine, the person tested shall be given such privacy in the taking of
the urine specimen as will ensure the accuracy of the specimen and,
at the same time, maintain the dignity of the individual involved.
(j) The department, in cooperation with the State Department of
Health Services or any other appropriate agency, shall adopt uniform
standards for the withdrawal, handling, and preservation of blood
samples prior to analysis.
(k) As used in this section, "certified paramedic" does not
include any employee of a fire department.
(l) Consent, waiver of liability, or the offering to, acceptance
by, or refusal of consent or waiver of liability by the person on
whom a test is administered, is not an issue or relevant to the
immunity from liability for medical or law enforcement personnel or
other facilities designated under subdivision (d).


California Vehicle Code section 23213.
No patient or other person residing in a social
rehabilitation facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 1500) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code for
the rehabilitation of persons who have abused alcohol or drugs, shall
have a motor vehicle registered in the name of that patient or
person on or near the premises of that facility unless the patient or
person has an operator's license issued pursuant to this code which
is not suspended or revoked.


California Vehicle Code section 23215.
The department may, but shall not be required to, provide
patrol or enforce the provisions of Section 23152 for offenses which
occur other than upon a highway.


California Vehicle Code section 23216.
(a) The provisions of Sections 2, 6, 7, and 10 expressly
apply to the provisions of this article, and, further, for any
recidivist or enhancement purpose, reference to an offense by section
number is a reference to the provisions contained in that section,
insofar as they were renumbered by Chapter 940 of the Statutes of
1981 without substantive change, and those provisions shall be
construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new
enactments.

(b) Any reference in the provisions of this code to a separate
violation of Section 23152 shall include a separate offense under
Section 23102 or 23105, as those sections read prior to January 1,
1982.

(c) Any reference in the provisions of the Vehicle Code to a
separate violation of Section 23153 shall include a separate offense
under Section 23101 or 23106 as those sections read prior to January
1, 1982.

(d) The provisions of this section are to be given retroactive
effect.


California Vehicle Code section 23217.
The Legislature finds and declares that some repeat
offenders of the prohibition against driving under the influence of
alcohol or drugs, when they are addicted or when they have too much
alcohol in their systems, may be escaping the intent of the
Legislature to punish the offender with progressively greater
severity if the offense is repeated one or more times within a
10-year period. This situation may occur when a conviction for a
subsequent offense occurs before a conviction is obtained on an
earlier offense.
The Legislature further finds and declares that the timing of
court proceedings should not permit a person to avoid aggravated
mandatory minimum penalties for multiple separate offenses occurring
within a 10-year period. It is the intent of the Legislature to
provide that a person be subject to enhanced mandatory minimum
penalties for multiple offenses within a period of 10 years,
regardless of whether the convictions are obtained in the same
sequence as the offenses had been committed.
Nothing in this section requires consideration of judgment of
conviction in a separate proceeding that is entered after the
judgment in the present proceeding, except as it relates to violation
of probation.
Nothing in this section or the amendments to Section 23540, 23546,
23550, 23560, 23566, 23622, or 23640 made by Chapter 1205 of the
Statutes of 1984 affects the penalty for a violation of Section 23152
or 23153 occurring prior to January 1, 1985.
California Vehicle Code section 23220.
(a) No person shall drink any alcoholic beverage while
driving a motor vehicle upon any highway or on any lands described in
subdivision (b).

(b) As used in subdivision (a), "lands" means those lands to which
the Chappie-Z'berg Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law of 1971 (Division
16.5 (commencing with Section 38000)) applies as to off-highway motor
vehicles, as described in Section 38001.

California Vehicle Code section 23221.
(a) No driver shall drink any alcoholic beverage while in a
motor vehicle upon a highway.

(b) No passenger shall drink any alcoholic beverage while in a
motor vehicle upon a highway.

California Vehicle Code section 23222.
(a) No person shall have in his or her possession on his or
her person, while driving a motor vehicle upon a highway or on lands,
as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23220, any bottle, can,
or other receptacle, containing any alcoholic beverage which has been
opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been
partially removed.

(b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses, while
driving a motor vehicle upon a highway or on lands, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23220, not more than one avoirdupois ounce
of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis as defined by Section
11006.5 of the Health and Safety Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars
($100). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the person
has been previously convicted three or more times of an offense
described in this subdivision during the two-year period immediately
preceding the date of commission of the violation to be charged, the
previous convictions shall also be charged in the accusatory pleading
and, if found to be true by the jury upon a jury trial or by the
court upon a court trial or if admitted by the person, Sections
1000.1 and 1000.2 of the Penal Code are applicable to the person, and
the court shall divert and refer the person for education,
treatment, or rehabilitation, without a court hearing or
determination or the concurrence of the district attorney, to an
appropriate community program which will accept the person. If the
person is so diverted and referred, the person is not subject to the
fine specified in this subdivision. In any case in which a person is
arrested for a violation of this subdivision and does not demand to
be taken before a magistrate, the person shall be released by the
arresting officer upon presentation of satisfactory evidence of
identity and giving his or her written promise to appear in court, as
provided in Section 40500, and shall not be subjected to booking.

California Vehicle Code section 23223.
(a) No driver shall have in his or her possession, while in
a motor vehicle upon a highway or on lands, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23220, any bottle, can, or other
receptacle, containing any alcoholic beverage that has been opened,
or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially
removed.

(b) No passenger shall have in his or her possession, while in a
motor vehicle upon a highway or on lands, as described in subdivision
(b) of Section 23220, any bottle, can, or other receptacle
containing any alcoholic beverage that has been opened or a seal
broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed.


California Vehicle Code section 23224.
(a) No person under the age of 21 years shall knowingly
drive any motor vehicle carrying any alcoholic beverage, unless the
person is accompanied by a parent, responsible adult relative, any
other adult designated by the parent, or legal guardian for the
purpose of transportation of an alcoholic beverage, or is employed by
a licensee under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Division 9
(commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions
Code), and is driving the motor vehicle during regular hours and in
the course of the person's employment. If the driver was
unaccompanied, he or she shall have a complete defense if he or she
was following, in a timely manner, the reasonable instructions of his
or her parent, legal guardian, responsible adult relative, or adult
designee relating to disposition of the alcoholic beverage.

(b) No passenger in any motor vehicle who is under the age of 21
years shall knowingly possess or have under that person's control any
alcoholic beverage, unless the passenger is accompanied by a parent,
legal guardian, responsible adult relative, any other adult
designated by the parent, or legal guardian for the purpose of
transportation of an alcoholic beverage, or is employed by a licensee
under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Division 9 (commencing
with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code), and
possession or control is during regular hours and in the course of
the passenger's employment. If the passenger was unaccompanied, he
or she shall have a complete defense if he or she was following, in a
timely manner, the reasonable instructions of his or her parent,
legal guardian, responsible adult relative or adult designee relating
to disposition of the alcoholic beverage.
(c) If the vehicle used in any violation of subdivision (a) or (b)
is registered to an offender who is under the age of 21 years, the
vehicle may be impounded at the owner's expense for not less than one
day nor more than 30 days for each violation.
(d) Any person under 21 years of age convicted of a violation of
this section is subject to Section 13202.5.
(e) Any person convicted for a violation of subdivision (a) or (b)
is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished upon conviction by
a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by
both that fine and imprisonment.

California Vehicle Code section 23225.
(a) (1) It is unlawful for the registered owner of any motor
vehicle to keep in a motor vehicle, when the vehicle is upon any
highway or on lands, as described in subdivision (b) of Section
23220, any bottle, can, or other receptacle containing any alcoholic
beverage that has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of
which have been partially removed, unless the container is kept in
the trunk of the vehicle.
(2) If the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk and is not an
off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification, as defined in
Section 38012, the bottle, can, or other receptacle described in
paragraph (1) shall be kept in some other area of the vehicle that is
not normally occupied by the driver or passengers. For the purposes
of this paragraph, a utility compartment or glove compartment shall
be deemed to be within the area occupied by the driver and
passengers.
(3) If the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk and is an
off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification, as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 38012, the bottle, can, or other
receptacle described in paragraph (1) shall be kept in a locked
container. As used in this paragraph, "locked container" means a
secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key
lock, combination lock, or similar locking device.

(b) Subdivision (a) is also applicable to a driver of a motor
vehicle if the registered owner is not present in the vehicle.
(c) This section shall not apply to the living quarters of a
housecar or camper.

California Vehicle Code section 23226.
(a) It is unlawful for any driver to keep in the passenger
compartment of a motor vehicle, when the vehicle is upon any highway
or on lands, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23220, any
bottle, can, or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage
that has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have
been partially removed.
(b) It is unlawful for any passenger to keep in the passenger
compartment of a motor vehicle, when the vehicle is upon any highway
or on lands, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23220, any
bottle, can, or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage
that has been opened or a seal broken, or the contents of which have
been partially removed.
(c) This section shall not apply to the living quarters of a
housecar or camper.

California Vehicle Code section 23229.
(a) Except as provided in Section 23229.1, Sections 23221
and 23223 do not apply to passengers in any bus, taxicab, or
limousine for hire licensed to transport passengers pursuant to the
Public Utilities Code or proper local authority, or the living
quarters of a housecar or camper.

(b) Except as provided in Section 23229.1, Section 23225 does not
apply to the driver or owner of a bus, taxicab, or limousine for hire
licensed to transport passengers pursuant to the Public Utilities
Code or proper local authority.
(c) This section shall become operative on July 1, 1989.


California Vehicle Code section 23136.
(a) Notwithstanding Sections 23152 and 23153, it is unlawful
for a person under the age of 21 years who has a blood-alcohol
concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a
preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test, to drive a
vehicle. However, this section shall not be a bar to prosecution
under Section 23152 or 23153 or any other provision of law.

(b) A person shall be found to be in violation of subdivision (a)
if the person was, at the time of driving, under the age of 21 years,
and the trier of fact finds that the person had consumed an
alcoholic beverage and was driving a vehicle with a blood-alcohol
concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a
preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test.

(c) (1) Any person under the age of 21 years who drives a motor
vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to a preliminary
alcohol screening test or other chemical test for the purpose of
determining the presence of alcohol in the person, if lawfully
detained for an alleged violation of subdivision (a).
(2) The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and
administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable
cause to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation
of subdivision (a).
(3) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to,
or the failure to complete, a preliminary alcohol screening test or
other chemical test as requested will result in the suspension or
revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a
period of one year to three years, as provided in Section 13353.1.
California Vehicle Code section 23140.
(a) It is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 years
who has 0.05 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood to drive a vehicle.

(b) A person may be found to be in violation of subdivision (a) if
the person was, at the time of driving, under the age of 21 years
and under the influence of, or affected by, an alcoholic beverage
regardless of whether a chemical test was made to determine that
person's blood-alcohol concentration and if the trier of fact finds
that the person had consumed an alcoholic beverage and was driving a
vehicle while having a concentration of 0.05 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood.

(c) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, upon a
finding that a person has violated this section, the clerk of the
court, or judge if there is no clerk, shall prepare within 10 days
after the finding and immediately forward to the department an
abstract of the record of the court in which the finding is made.
That abstract shall be a public record and available for public
inspection in the same manner as other records reported under Section
1803.


13350. (a) The department immediately shall revoke the privilege of
any person to drive a motor vehicle upon receipt of a duly certified
abstract of the record of any 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 person to stop or otherwise
comply with Section 20001.
(2) Any 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) of Section 192 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 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.



13350.5. Notwithstanding Section 13350, for the purposes of this
article, conviction of a violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision
(c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code is a conviction of a violation
of Section 23153.


13351. (a) The department immediately shall revoke the privilege of
any person to drive a motor vehicle upon receipt of a duly certified
abstract of the record of any court showing that the person has been
convicted of any of the following crimes or offenses:
(1) Manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle,
except when convicted under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of
Section 192 of the Penal Code.
(2) Conviction of three or more violations of Section 20001,
20002, 23103, or 23104 within a period of 12 months from the time of
the first offense to the third or subsequent offense, or a
combination of three or more convictions of violations within the
same period.
(3) Violation of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code or of Section
2800.3 causing serious bodily injury resulting in a serious
impairment of physical condition, including, but not limited to, loss
of consciousness, concussion, serious bone fracture, protracted loss
or impairment of function of any bodily member or organ, and serious
disfigurement.
(b) The department shall not reinstate the privilege revoked under
subdivision (a) until the expiration of three years after the date
of revocation and until the person whose privilege was revoked gives
proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430.


13351.5. (a) Upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the
record of any court showing that a person has been convicted of a
felony for a violation of Section 245 of the Penal Code and that a
vehicle was found by the court to constitute the deadly weapon or
instrument used to commit that offense, the department immediately
shall revoke the privilege of that person to drive a motor vehicle.
(b) The department shall not reinstate a privilege revoked under
subdivision (a) under any circumstances.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the department shall
terminate any revocation order issued under this section on or after
January 1, 1995, for a misdemeanor conviction of violating Section
245 of the Penal Code.


13351.8. Upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of the record of
any court showing that the court has ordered the suspension of a
driver's license pursuant to Section 13210, on or after January 1,
2001, the department shall suspend the person's driving privilege in
accordance with that suspension order commencing either on the date
of the person's conviction or upon the person's release from
confinement or imprisonment.


13351.85. Upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of any court
showing that a person has been convicted of a violation of Section
12110, the department shall suspend that person's driving privilege
for four months if the conviction was a first conviction, and for one
year, if the conviction was a second or subsequent conviction of a
violation of that section that occurred within seven years of the
current conviction.


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 any 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, 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 any 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 13352.4, 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.
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 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 not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(2) 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. 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
11836 of the Health and Safety Code as described in subdivision (b)
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 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 not be given to any 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 years. 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 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 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 any 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.
(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, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section
23560, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years.
The privilege may 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 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 any 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.
(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, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23546, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years.
The privilege may 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 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 any 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 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, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section
23550.5 or 23566, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of five
years. The privilege may 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 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 any 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) Any 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, 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. The
privilege may 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, 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 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 any 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 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 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 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 any 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.
(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) 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) 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).


13352.2. (a) If a person is required under Section 13352 to provide
the department with proof of enrollment in a
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, the department shall deem that
requirement satisfied upon receiving at its headquarters proof of
enrollment that is satisfactory to the department and has been
forwarded to the department by the program provider.
(b) If a person is required under Section 13352 to provide the
department with proof of completion of a 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, the
department shall deem that requirement satisfied upon receiving at
its headquarters proof of completion that is satisfactory to the
department and has been forwarded to the department by the program
provider.


13352.3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except
subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) of Section 13352 and Sections 13367
and 23521, the department immediately shall revoke the privilege of
any person to operate a motor vehicle upon receipt of a duly
certified abstract of the record of any court showing that the person
was convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 while under
18 years of age, or upon receipt of a report of a judge of the
juvenile court, a juvenile hearing officer, or a referee of a
juvenile court showing that the person has been found to have
committed a violation of Section 23152 or 23153.
(b) The term of the revocation shall be until the person reaches
18 years of age, for one year, or for the period prescribed for
restriction, suspension, or revocation specified in subdivision (a)
of Section 13352, whichever is longer. The privilege may not be
reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility
as defined in Section 16430.


13352.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the department
shall issue a restricted driver's license to a person whose driver's
license was suspended under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352, if the person meets all of the following requirements:

(1) Submits proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in,
or completion of, a driving-under-the-influence program licensed
pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described
in subdivision (b) of Section 23538.
(2) Submits proof of financial responsibility, as defined in
Section 16430.
(3) Pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any
restriction fee required by the department.
(b) The restriction of the driving privilege shall become
effective when the department receives all of the documents and fees
required under subdivision (a) and shall remain in effect until the
final day of the original suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, or until the date all reinstatement
requirements described in Section 13352 have been met, whichever
date is later, and may include credit for any suspension period
served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(c) The restriction of the driving privilege shall be limited to
the hours necessary for driving to and from the person's place of
employment, driving during the course of employment, and driving to
and from activities required in the driving-under-the-influence
program.
(d) Whenever the driving privilege is restricted under this
section, proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section
16430, shall be maintained for three years. If the person does not
maintain that proof of financial responsibility at any time during
the restriction, the driving privilege shall be suspended until the
proof required under Section 16484 is received by the department.
(e) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation,
and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date
of the current violation. Credit may not be given to a program
activity completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(f) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under
this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352
immediately upon receipt of notification from the
driving-under-the-influence program that the person has failed to
comply with the program requirements. The privilege shall remain
suspended until the final day of the original suspension imposed
under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, or until the
date all reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352 have
been met, whichever date is later.
(g) The holder of a commercial driver's license who was operating
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the time
of a violation that resulted in a suspension or revocation of the
person's noncommercial driving privilege under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 is not eligible for the restricted
driver's license authorized under this section.
(h) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination, as
authorized under subdivision (d) of Section 23536 or paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a) of Section 23538, to disallow the issuance of a
restricted driver's license, the department may not issue a
restricted driver's license under this section.
(i) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.


13352.5. (a) 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 proof of financial responsibility, as
described in Section 16430.
(3) 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 suspension period
served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(4) 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 (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.
(c) The restriction of the driving privilege shall be limited to
the hours necessary for driving to and from the person's place of
employment, driving during the course of employment, and driving to
and from activities required in the driving-under-the-influence
program.
(d) Whenever the driving privilege is restricted under this
section, proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section
16430, shall be maintained for three years. If the person does not
maintain that proof of financial responsibility at any time during
the restriction, the driving privilege shall be suspended until the
proof required under Section 16484 is received by the department.
(e) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation,
and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date
of the current violation. No credit may be given to any program
activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(f) The department shall terminate the restriction imposed
pursuant to this section and shall suspend the privilege to drive
under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 upon receipt
of notification from the driving-under-the-influence program that the
person has failed to comply with the program requirements.
(g) 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 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.


13352.6. (a) The department shall immediately suspend the driving
privilege of any 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 court showing that
conviction. The privilege may 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) of Section 192 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 not be given for any program activities completed
prior to the date of the current violation.


13353. (a) If a person refuses the officer's request to submit to,
or fails to complete, a chemical test or tests pursuant to Section
23612, upon receipt of the officer's sworn statement that the officer
had reasonable cause to believe the person had been driving a motor
vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, and that the
person had refused to submit to, or did not complete, the test or
tests after being requested by the officer, the department shall do
one of the following:
(1) Suspend the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for
a period of one year.
(2) Revoke the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a
period of two years if the refusal occurred within 10 years of
either (A) a separate violation of Section 23103 as specified in
Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section
191.5 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal
Code, that resulted in a conviction, or (B) a suspension or
revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle
pursuant to this section or Section 13353.2 for an offense that
occurred on a separate occasion.
(3) Revoke the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a
period of three years if the refusal occurred within 10 years of any
of the following:
(A) Two or more separate violations of Section 23103 as specified
in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of
Section 191.5 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of
the Penal Code, or any combination thereof, that resulted in
convictions.
(B) Two or more suspensions or revocations of the person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to this section or
Section 13353.2 for offenses that occurred on separate occasions.
(C) Any combination of two or more of those convictions or
administrative suspensions or revocations.
The officer's sworn statement shall be submitted pursuant to
Section 13380 on a form furnished or approved by the department. The
suspension or revocation shall not become effective until 30 days
after the giving of written notice thereof, or until the end of any
stay of the suspension or revocation, as provided for in Section
13558.
(D) For the purposes of this section, a conviction of any offense
in any 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) of Section 192 of the Penal Code, is a conviction of
that particular section of the Vehicle Code or Penal Code.
(b) If a person on more than one occasion in separate incidents
refuses the officer's request to submit to, or fails to complete, a
chemical test or tests pursuant to Section 23612 while driving a
motor vehicle, upon the receipt of the officer's sworn statement that
the officer had reasonable cause to believe the person had been
driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or
23153, the department shall disqualify the person from operating a
commercial motor vehicle for the rest of his or her lifetime.
(c) The notice of the order of suspension or revocation under this
section shall be served on the person by a peace officer pursuant to
Section 23612. The notice of the order of suspension or revocation
shall be on a form provided by the department. If the notice of the
order of suspension or revocation has not been served by the peace
officer pursuant to Section 23612, the department immediately shall
notify the person in writing of the action taken. The peace officer
who serves the notice, or the department, if applicable, also shall
provide, if the officer or department, as the case may be, determines
that it is necessary to do so, the person with the appropriate
non-English notice developed pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section
14100.
(d) Upon the receipt of the officer's sworn statement, the
department shall review the record. For purposes of this section, the
scope of the administrative review shall cover all of the following
issues:
(1) Whether the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe the
person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section
23140, 23152, or 23153.
(2) Whether the person was placed under arrest.
(3) Whether the person refused to submit to, or did not complete,
the test or tests after being requested by a peace officer.
(4) Whether, except for a person described in subdivision (a) of
Section 23612 who is incapable of refusing, the person had been told
that his or her driving privilege would be suspended or revoked if he
or she refused to submit to, or did not complete, the test or tests.

(e) The person may request an administrative hearing pursuant to
Section 13558. Except as provided in subdivision (e) of Section
13558, the request for an administrative hearing does not stay the
order of suspension or revocation.
(f) The suspension or revocation imposed under this section shall
run concurrently with any restriction, suspension, or revocation
imposed under Section 13352, 13352.4, or 13352.5 that resulted from
the same arrest.
(g) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.


13353.1. (a) If a person refuses an officer's request to submit to,
or fails to complete, a preliminary alcohol screening test pursuant
to Section 13388, upon the receipt of the officer's sworn statement,
submitted pursuant to Section 13380, that the officer had reasonable
cause to believe the person had been driving a motor vehicle in
violation of Section 23136, and that the person had refused to submit
to, or did not complete, the test after being requested by the
officer, the department shall do one of the following:
(1) Suspend the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for
a period of one year.
(2) Revoke the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a
period of two years if the refusal occurred within 10 years of
either of the following:
(A) A separate violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23136, that
resulted in a finding of a violation, or a separate violation, that
resulted in a conviction, 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) of Section 192 of
that code.
(B) A suspension or revocation of the person's privilege to
operate a motor vehicle if that action was taken pursuant to this
section or Section 13353 or 13353.2 for an offense that occurred on a
separate occasion.
(3) Revoke the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a
period of three years if the refusal occurred within 10 years of any
of the following:
(A) Two or more separate violations of subdivision (a) of Section
23136, that resulted in findings of violations, or two or more
separate violations, that resulted in convictions, 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) of Section 192 of that code, or any combination
thereof.
(B) Two or more suspensions or revocations of the person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle if those actions were taken
pursuant to this section, or Section 13353 or 13353.2, for offenses
that occurred on separate occasions.
(C) Any combination of two or more of the convictions or
administrative suspensions or revocations described in subparagraph
(A) or (B).
(b) For the purposes of this section, a conviction of any offense
in any 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
23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23140, 23152, or
23153, or Section 191.5 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of
Section 192 of the Penal Code, is a conviction of that particular
section of the Vehicle or Penal Code.
(c) The notice of the order of suspension or revocation under this
section shall be served on the person by the peace officer pursuant
to Section 13388 and shall not become effective until 30 days after
the person is served with that notice. The notice of the order of
suspension or revocation shall be on a form provided by the
department. If the notice of the order of suspension or revocation
has not been served by the peace officer pursuant to Section 13388,
the department immediately shall notify the person in writing of the
action taken. The peace officer who serves the notice, or the
department, if applicable, also shall provide, if the officer or
department, as the case may be, determines that it is necessary to do
so, the person with the appropriate non-English notice developed
pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 14100.
(d) Upon the receipt of the officer's sworn statement, the
department shall review the record. For the purposes of this
section, the scope of the administrative review shall cover all of
the following issues:
(1) Whether the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe the
person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section
23136.
(2) Whether the person was lawfully detained.
(3) Whether the person refused to submit to, or did not complete,
the test after being requested to do so by a peace officer.
(e) The person may request an administrative hearing pursuant to
Section 13558. Except as provided in subdivision (e) of Section
13558, the request for an administrative hearing does not stay the
order of suspension or revocation.


13353.2. (a) The department shall immediately suspend the privilege
of any person to operate a motor vehicle for any one of the
following reasons:
(1) The person was driving a motor vehicle when the person had
0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood.
(2) The person was under 21 years of age and had a blood-alcohol
concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a
preliminary alcohol screening test, or other chemical test.
(b) The notice of the order of suspension under this section shall
be served on the person by a peace officer pursuant to Section 13388
or 13382. The notice of the order of suspension shall be on a form
provided by the department. If the notice of the order of suspension
has not been served upon the person by the peace officer pursuant to
Section 13388 or 13382, upon the receipt of the report of a peace
officer submitted pursuant to Section 13380, the department shall
mail written notice of the order of the suspension to the person at
the last known address shown on the department's records and, if the
address of the person provided by the peace officer's report differs
from the address of record, to that address.
(c) The notice of the order of suspension shall clearly specify
the reason and statutory grounds for the suspension, the effective
date of the suspension, the right of the person to request an
administrative hearing, the procedure for requesting an
administrative hearing, and the date by which a request for an
administrative hearing shall be made in order to receive a
determination prior to the effective date of the suspension.
(d) The department shall make a determination of the facts in
subdivision (a) on the basis of the report of a peace officer
submitted pursuant to Section 13380. The determination of the facts,
after administrative review pursuant to Section 13557, by the
department is final, unless an administrative hearing is held
pursuant to Section 13558 and any judicial review of the
administrative determination after the hearing pursuant to Section
13559 is final.
(e) The determination of the facts in subdivision (a) is a civil
matter which is independent of the determination of the person's
guilt or innocence, shall have no collateral estoppel effect on a
subsequent criminal prosecution, and shall not preclude the
litigation of the same or similar facts in the criminal proceeding.
If a person is acquitted of criminal charges relating to a
determination of facts under subdivision (a), or if the person's
driver's license was suspended pursuant to Section 13388 and the
department finds no basis for a suspension pursuant to that section,
the department shall immediately reinstate the person's privilege to
operate a motor vehicle if the department has suspended it
administratively pursuant to subdivision (a), and the department
shall return or reissue for the remaining term any driver's license
which has been taken from the person pursuant to Section 13382 or
otherwise. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 13558, if
criminal charges under Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 are not filed
by the district attorney because of a lack of evidence, or if those
charges are filed but are subsequently dismissed by the court because
of an insufficiency of evidence, the person has a renewed right to
request an administrative hearing before the department. The request
for a hearing shall be made within one year from the date of arrest.

(f) The department shall furnish a form that requires a detailed
explanation specifying which evidence was defective or lacking and
detailing why that evidence was defective or lacking. The form shall
be made available to the person to provide to the district attorney.
The department shall hold an administrative hearing, and the
hearing officer shall consider the reasons for the failure to
prosecute given by the district attorney on the form provided by the
department. If applicable, the hearing officer shall consider the
reasons stated on the record by a judge who dismisses the charges.
No fee shall be imposed pursuant to Section 14905 for the return or
reissuing of a driver's license pursuant to this subdivision. The
disposition of a suspension action under this section does not affect
any action to suspend or revoke the person's privilege to operate a
motor vehicle under any other provision of this code, including, but
not limited to, Section 13352 or 13353, or Chapter 3 (commencing with
Section 13800).


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 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) of
Section 192 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) of Section 192 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 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 offense
in any 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) of Section 192 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.


13353.4. (a) Except as provided in Section 13353.7 or 13353.8, the
driving privilege shall not be restored, and a restricted or hardship
permit to operate a motor vehicle shall not be issued, to a person
during the suspension or revocation period specified in Section
13353, 13353.1, or 13353.3.
(b) The privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall not be restored
after a suspension or revocation pursuant to Section 13352, 13353,
13353.1, or 13353.2 until all applicable fees, including the fees
prescribed in Section 14905, have been paid and the person gives
proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430, to
the department.
(c) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.


13353.45. The department shall, in consultation with the State
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, with representatives of the
county alcohol program administrators, and with representatives of
licensed drinking driver program providers, develop a certificate of
completion for the purposes of Sections 13352, 13352.4, and 13352.5
and shall develop, implement, and maintain a system for safeguarding
the certificates against misuse. The department may charge a
reasonable fee for each blank completion certificate distributed to a
drinking driver program. The fee shall be sufficient to cover, but
shall not exceed, the costs incurred in administering this section,
Sections 13352, 13352.4, and 13352.5 or twelve dollars ($12) per
person, whichever is less.


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, 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.
(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.


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) of Section 192 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, 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 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) of Section 192
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 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 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 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.


13353.8. (a) After the department has issued an order suspending or
delaying driving privileges as a result of a violation of
subdivision (a) of Section 23136, the department, upon the petition
of the person affected, may review the order and may impose
restrictions on the person's privilege to drive based upon a showing
of a critical need to drive, if the department determines that,
within 10 years of the current violation of Section 23136, the person
has not violated Section 23136 or 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 191.5 of,
or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of, the Penal
Code, and that the person's driving privilege has not been suspended
or revoked under Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 within that
10-year period.
(b) For purposes of this section, 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 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,
23153, or Section 191.5 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of
Section 192 of the Penal Code, is a conviction of that particular
section of the Vehicle Code or Penal Code.
(c) As used in this section, "critical need to drive" means the
circumstances that are required to be shown for the issuance of a
junior permit pursuant to Section 12513.
(d) The restriction shall be imposed not earlier than the 31st day
after the date the order of suspension became effective and shall
remain in effect for the balance of the period of suspension or
restriction in this section.


13355. The department shall immediately suspend the privilege of
any person to operate a motor vehicle upon receipt of a duly
certified abstract of the record of any court showing that the person
has been convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section
22348, or upon a receipt of a report of a judge of a juvenile court,
a juvenile hearing officer, or a referee of a juvenile court showing
that the person has been found to have committed a violation of
subdivision (b) of Section 22348 under the following conditions and
for the periods, as follows:
(a) Upon a conviction or finding of an offense under subdivision
(b) of Section 22348 that occurred within three years of a prior
offense resulting in a conviction of an offense under subdivision (b)
of Section 22348, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of
six months, or the privilege shall be restricted for six months to
necessary travel to and from the person's place of employment and, if
driving a motor vehicle is necessary to perform the duties of the
person's employment, restricted to driving within the person's scope
of employment.
(b) Upon a conviction or finding of an offense under subdivision
(b) of Section 22348 that occurred within five years of two or more
prior offenses resulting in convictions of offenses under subdivision
(b) of Section 22348, the privilege shall be suspended for a period
of one year, or the privilege shall be restricted for one year to
necessary travel to and from the person's place of employment and, if
driving a motor vehicle is necessary to perform the duties of the
person's employment, restricted to driving within the person's scope
of employment.


13357. Upon the recommendation of the court the department shall
suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle of any
person who has been found guilty of a violation of Section 10851.


13359. The department may suspend or revoke the privilege of any
person to operate a motor vehicle upon any of the grounds which
authorize the refusal to issue a license.


13360. Upon receiving satisfactory evidence of any violation of the
restrictions of a driver's license, the department may suspend or
revoke the same.


13361. The department may suspend the privilege of any person to
operate a motor vehicle upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of
the record of any court showing that the person has been convicted of
any of the following crimes or offenses:
(a) Failure to stop in the event of an accident resulting in
damage to property only, or otherwise failing to comply with the
requirements of Section 20002.
(b) A second or subsequent conviction of reckless driving.
(c) Manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle
as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the
Penal Code.
In any case under this section the department is authorized to
require proof of ability to respond in damages as defined in Section
16430.


13362. The department may require the surrender to it of any driver'
s license which has been issued erroneously or which contains any
erroneous or false statement, or which does not contain any notation
required by law or by the department. In the event a licensee does
not surrender the license upon proper demand, the department may
suspend the licensee's privilege to operate a motor vehicle. The
suspension shall continue until the correction of the license by the
department or until issuance of another license or temporary license
in lieu thereof.


13363. (a) The department may, in its discretion, except as
provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 6,
of this code, suspend or revoke the privilege of any resident or
nonresident to drive a motor vehicle in this State upon receiving
notice of the conviction of the person in a state, territory, or
possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Dominion of Canada of an offense
therein which, if committed in this State, would be grounds for the
suspension or revocation of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle.

(b) Whenever any state, territory, or possession of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
the Dominion of Canada reports the conviction of a violation in such
place by a person licensed in this State, the department shall not
give effect to such report pursuant to subdivision (a) of this
section or Section 15023 unless the department is satisfied that the
law of such other place pertaining to the conviction is substantially
the same as the law of this State pertaining to such conviction and
that the description of the violation from which the conviction
arose, is sufficient and that the interpretation and enforcement of
such law are substantially the same in such other place as they are
in this State.


13364. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, a
person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended upon
notification by a bank or financial institution that a check has
been dishonored when that check was presented to the department for
either of the following reasons:
(1) In payment of a fine that resulted from an outstanding
violation pursuant to Section 40508 or a suspension pursuant to
Section 13365.
(2) In payment of a fee or penalty owed by the person, if the fee
or penalty is required by this code for the issuance, reissuance, or
return of the person's driver's license after suspension, revocation,
or restriction of the driving privilege.
(b) The suspension shall remain in effect until payment of all
fines, fees, and penalties is made to the department or to the court,
as appropriate, and the person's driving record does not contain any
notification of a court order issued pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 42003 or of a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section
40508.
(c) No suspension imposed pursuant to this section shall become
effective until 30 days after the mailing of a written notice of the
intent to suspend.
(d) The written notice of a suspension imposed pursuant to this
section shall be delivered by certified mail.
(e) If any personal check is offered in payment of fines described
in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) and is returned for any reason,
the related notice issued pursuant to Section 40509 or 40509.5 shall
be restored to the person's record.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any license that
has been suspended pursuant to this section shall immediately be
reinstated, and the fees and penalties waived, upon the submission of
proof acceptable to the department that the check has been
erroneously dishonored by the bank or financial institution.


13365. (a) Upon receipt of notification of a violation of
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 40508, the department shall take
the following action:
(1) If the notice is given pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 40509, if the driving record of the person who is the subject
of the notice contains one or more prior notifications of a
violation issued pursuant to Section 40509 or 40509.5, and if the
person's driving privilege is not currently suspended under this
section, the department shall suspend the driving privilege of the
person.
(2) If the notice is given pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 40509.5, and if the driving privilege of the person who is
the subject of the notice is not currently suspended under this
section, the department shall suspend the driving privilege of the
person.
(b) A suspension under this section shall not be effective before
a date 60 days after the date of receipt, by the department, of the
notice given specified in subdivision (a), and the notice of
suspension shall not be mailed by the department before a date 30
days after receipt of the notice given specified in subdivision (a).

The suspension shall continue until the suspended person's
driving record does not contain any notification of a violation of
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 40508.


13365.2. (a) Upon receipt of the notice required under subdivision
(c) of Section 40509.5, the department shall suspend the driving
privilege of the person upon whom notice was received and shall
continue that suspension until receipt of the certificate required
under that subdivision.
(b) The suspension required under subdivision (a) shall become
effective on the 45th day after the mailing of written notice by the
department.


13365.5. (a) Upon receipt of a notification issued pursuant to
Section 40509.1, the department shall suspend the person's privilege
to operate a motor vehicle until compliance with the court order is
shown or as prescribed in subdivision (c) of Section 12808. The
suspension under this section shall not be effective until 45 days
after the giving of written notice by the department.
(b) This section does not apply to a notification of failure to
comply with a court order issued for a violation enumerated in
paragraph (1), (2), (3), (6), or (7) of subdivision (b) of Section
1803.


13366. Whenever in this code the department is required to suspend
or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon
the conviction of such person of violating this code, such suspension
or revocation shall begin upon a plea, finding or verdict of guilty.


13366.5. (a) Notwithstanding Section 13366, whenever in this code
the department is required to disqualify the commercial driving
privilege of a person to operate a commercial motor vehicle upon the
conviction of that person of a violation of this code, the suspension
or revocation shall begin upon receipt by the department of a duly
certified abstract of any court record showing that the person has
been so convicted.
(b) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.



13367. For purposes of the suspension or revocation of any driver's
license issued to a minor, the department shall not provide any
lighter penalty than would be given to an adult under similar
circumstances.


13368. The department, as a condition to the reinstatement of a
suspended license or the issuance of a new license to an individual
whose prior license has been revoked, may require the individual to
attend the program authorized by the provisions of Section 1659.



13369. (a) This section applies to the following endorsements and
certificates:
(1) Passenger transportation vehicle.
(2) Hazardous materials.
(3) Schoolbus.
(4) School pupil activity bus.
(5) Youth bus.
(6) General public paratransit vehicle.
(7) Farm labor vehicle.
(8) Vehicle used for the transportation of developmentally
disabled persons.
(b) The department shall refuse to issue or renew, or shall revoke
the certificate or endorsement of any person who meets the following
conditions:
(1) Within three years, has committed any violation that results
in a conviction assigned a violation point count of two or more, as
defined in Sections 12810 and 12810.5. The department may not refuse
to issue or renew, nor may it revoke, a person's hazardous materials
or passenger transportation vehicle endorsement if the violation
leading to the conviction occurred in the person's private vehicle
and not in a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210.
(2) Within three years, has had his or her driving privilege
suspended, revoked, or on probation for any reason involving unsafe
operation of a motor vehicle. The department may not refuse to issue
or renew, nor may it revoke, a person's passenger transportation
vehicle endorsement if the person's driving privilege has, within
three years, been placed on probation only for any reason involving
unsafe operation of a motor vehicle.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), does not meet the
qualifications for issuance of a hazardous materials endorsement set
forth in Parts 383, 384, and 1572 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
(c) The department may refuse to issue or renew, or may suspend or
revoke the certificate or endorsement of any person who meets any of
the following conditions:
(1) Within 12 months, has been involved as a driver in three
accidents in which the driver caused or contributed to the causes of
the accidents.
(2) Within 24 months, as a driver, caused or contributed to the
cause of an accident resulting in a fatality or serious injury or
serious property damage in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars
($750).
(3) Has violated any provision of this code, or any rule or
regulation pertaining to the safe operation of a vehicle for which
the certificate or endorsement was issued.
(4) Has violated any restriction of the certificate, endorsement,
or commercial driver's license.
(5) Has knowingly made a false statement or failed to disclose a
material fact on an application for a certificate or endorsement.
(6) Has been determined by the department to be a negligent or
incompetent operator.
(7) Has demonstrated irrational behavior to the extent that a
reasonable and prudent person would have reasonable cause to believe
that the applicant's ability to perform the duties of a driver may be
impaired.
(8) Excessively or habitually uses, or is addicted to, alcoholic
beverages, narcotics, or dangerous drugs.
(9) Does not meet the minimum medical standards established or
approved by the department.
(d) The department may cancel the certificate or endorsement of
any driver who meets any of the following conditions:
(1) Does not have a valid driver's license of the appropriate
class.
(2) Has requested cancellation of the certificate or endorsement.

(3) Has failed to meet any of the requirements for issuance or
retention of the certificate or endorsement, including, but not
limited to, payment of the proper fee, submission of an acceptable
medical report and fingerprint cards, and compliance with prescribed
training requirements.
(4) Has had his or her driving privilege suspended or revoked for
a cause involving other than the safe operation of a motor vehicle.
(e) (1) Reapplication following refusal or revocation under
subdivision (b) or (c) may be made after a period of not less than
one year from the effective date of denial or revocation, except in
cases where a longer period of suspension or revocation is required
by law.
(2) Reapplication following cancellation under subdivision (d) may
be made at any time without prejudice.


13370. (a) The department shall refuse to issue or shall revoke a
schoolbus, school pupil activity bus, general public paratransit
vehicle, or youth bus driver certificate, or a certificate for a
vehicle used for the transportation of developmentally disabled
persons, if any of the following causes apply to the applicant or
certificate holder:
(1) Has been convicted of a sex offense as defined in Section
44010 of the Education Code.
(2) Has been convicted, within two years, of an offense specified
in Section 11361.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) Has failed to meet prescribed training requirements for
certificate issuance.
(4) Has failed to meet prescribed testing requirements for
certificate issuance.
(5) Has been convicted of a violent felony listed in subdivision
(c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, or a serious felony listed in
subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code. This paragraph
shall not be applied to revoke a license that was valid on January 1,
2005, unless the certificate holder is convicted for an offense that
is committed on or after that date.
(b) The department may refuse to issue or renew, or may suspend or
revoke a schoolbus, school pupil activity bus, general public
paratransit vehicle, or youth bus driver certificate, or a
certificate for a vehicle used for the transportation of
developmentally disabled persons if any of the following causes apply
to the applicant or certificate holder:
(1) Has been convicted of a crime specified in Section 44424 of
the Education Code within seven years. This paragraph does not apply
if denial is mandatory.
(2) Has committed an act involving moral turpitude.
(3) Has been convicted of an offense, not specified in this
section and other than a sex offense, that is punishable as a felony,
within seven years.
(4) Has been dismissed as a driver for a cause relating to pupil
transportation safety.
(5) Has been convicted, within seven years, of an offense relating
to the use, sale, possession, or transportation of narcotics,
habit-forming drugs, or dangerous drugs, except as provided in
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).
(c) (1) Reapplication following refusal or revocation under
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) or (b) may be made
after a period of not less than one year after the effective date of
refusal or revocation.
(2) Reapplication following refusal or revocation under paragraph
(4) of subdivision (a) may be made after a period of not less than 45
days after the date of the applicant's third testing failure.
(3) An applicant or holder of a certificate may reapply for a
certificate whenever a felony or misdemeanor conviction is reversed
or dismissed. A termination of probation and dismissal of charges
pursuant to Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code or a dismissal of
charges pursuant to Section 1203.4a of the Penal Code is not a
dismissal for purposes of this section.


13371. This section applies to schoolbus, school pupil activity
bus, youth bus, general public paratransit vehicle certificates, and
a certificate for a vehicle used for the transportation of
developmentally disabled persons.
(a) Any driver or applicant who has received a notice of refusal,
suspension, or revocation, may, within 15 days after the mailing
date, submit to the department a written request for a hearing.
Failure to demand a hearing within 15 days is a waiver of the right
to a hearing.
(1) Upon receipt by the department of the hearing request, the
department may stay the action until a hearing is conducted and the
final decision has been rendered by the Certificate Action Review
Board pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d). The department
shall not stay an action when there is reasonable cause to believe
the stay would pose a significant risk to the safety of pupils being
transported in a schoolbus, school pupil activity bus, youth bus, or
persons being transported in a general public paratransit vehicle.
(2) An applicant or driver is not entitled to a hearing whenever
the action by the department is made mandatory by this article or any
other applicable law or regulation except where the cause for
refusal is based on failure to meet medical standards or excessive
and habitual use of or addiction to alcoholic beverages, narcotics,
or dangerous drugs.
(b) The department shall appoint a hearing officer to conduct the
hearing in accordance with Section 14112. After the hearing, the
hearing officer shall prepare and submit findings and recommendations
to the department.
(c) The department shall mail, as specified in Section 22, a copy
of the hearing officer's findings and recommendations to the driver
or applicant and to the driver or applicant's hearing representative,
either of whom may file a statement of exception to the findings and
recommendations within 24 days after the mailing date.
(d) (1) The Certificate Action Review Board consists of the
following three members: a chairperson appointed by the director of
the department, a member appointed by the Commissioner of the
California Highway Patrol, and a member appointed by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
(2) After a hearing, the board shall review the findings and
recommendations of the hearing officer, and any statement of
exception, and make a decision concerning disposition of the action
taken by the department, which decision shall be final. At this
stage, no evidence shall be heard that was not presented at the
hearing, unless the person wishing to present the new evidence
establishes, to the satisfaction of the board, that it could not have
been obtained with due diligence prior to the hearing.


13372. (a) The department shall refuse to issue or renew, or shall
suspend or revoke an ambulance driver certificate if any of the
following apply to the applicant or certificate holder:
(1) Is required to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of
the Penal Code for any offense involving force, violence, threat, or
intimidation.
(2) Habitually or excessively uses or is addicted to narcotics or
dangerous drugs.
(3) Is on parole or probation for any felony, theft, or any crime
involving force, violence, threat, or intimidation.
(b) The department may refuse to issue or renew, or may suspend or
revoke an ambulance driver certificate if any of the following apply
to the applicant or certificate holder:
(1) Has been convicted within seven years of any offense
punishable as a felony or has been convicted during that period of
any theft.
(2) Has committed any act involving moral turpitude, including
fraud or intentional dishonesty for personal gain, within seven
years.
(3) Habitually and excessively uses intoxicating beverages.
(4) Has been convicted within seven years of any offense relating
to the use, sale, possession, or transportation of narcotics or
addictive or dangerous drugs, or of any misdemeanor involving force,
violence, threat, or intimidation.
(5) Is on probation to the department for a cause involving the
unsafe operation of a motor vehicle.
(6) Within three years has had his or her driver's license
suspended or revoked by the department for a cause involving the
unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, or, within the same period, has
been convicted of any of the following:
(A) Failing to stop and render aid in an accident involving injury
or death.
(B) Driving-under-the-influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug,
or under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and any drug.

(C) Reckless driving, or reckless driving involving bodily injury.

(7) Has knowingly made a false statement or failed to disclose a
material fact in his or her application.
(8) Has been involved as a driver in any motor vehicle accident
causing death or bodily injury or in three or more motor vehicle
accidents within one year.
(9) Does not meet minimum medical standards specified in this code
or in regulations adopted pursuant to this code.
(10) Has demonstrated irrational behavior or incurred a physical
disability to the extent that a reasonable and prudent person would
have reasonable cause to believe that the ability to perform the
duties normally expected of an ambulance driver may be impaired.
(11) Has violated any provision of this code or any rule or
regulation adopted by the Commissioner of the California Highway
Patrol relating to the operation of emergency ambulances within one
year.
(12) Has committed any act that warrants dismissal, as provided in
Section 13373.
(c) (1) Reapplication following refusal or revocation under
subdivision (a) or (b) may be made after a period of not less than
one year after the effective date of the refusal or revocation,
except in cases where a longer period of refusal, suspension, or
revocation is required by law.
(2) Reapplication following refusal or revocation under
subdivision (a) or (b) may be made if a felony or misdemeanor
conviction supporting the refusal or revocation is reversed or
dismissed. A termination of probation and dismissal of charges under
Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code or a dismissal of charges under
Section 1203.4a of the Penal Code is not a dismissal for purposes of
this section.


13373. The receipt of satisfactory evidence of any violation of
Article 1 (commencing with Section 1100) of Subchapter 5 of Chapter 2
of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the Vehicle Code,
or any other applicable law that would provide grounds for refusal,
suspension, or revocation of an ambulance driver's certificate or
evidence of an act committed involving intentional dishonesty for
personal gain or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals, may be sufficient cause for the dismissal of any
ambulance driver or attendant. Dismissal of a driver or attendant
under this section shall be reported by the employer to the
Department of Motor Vehicles at Sacramento within 10 days.


13374. (a) An applicant for, or the holder of, an ambulance driver
certificate who has received a notice of refusal, suspension, or
revocation may submit, within 15 days after the notice has been
mailed by the department, a written request for a hearing. Upon
receipt of the request, the department shall appoint a referee who
shall conduct an informal hearing in accordance with Section 14104.
Failure to request a hearing within 15 days after the notice has been
mailed by the department is a waiver of the right to a hearing. A
request for a hearing shall not operate to stay the action for which
notice is given.
(b) Upon conclusion of an informal hearing, the referee shall
prepare and submit findings and recommendations through the
department to a committee of three members one each appointed by the
Director of the Emergency Medical Service Authority, the director,
and the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol with the
appointee of the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol
serving as chairperson. After a review of the findings and
recommendations, the committee shall render a final decision on the
action taken, and the department shall notify the person involved of
the decision.


13375. For the purposes of this article, any plea or verdict of
guilty, plea of nolo contendere, or court finding of guilt in a
trial without a jury, or forfeiture of bail, is deemed a conviction,
notwithstanding subsequent action under Section 1203.4 or 1203.4a of
the Penal Code allowing withdrawal of the plea of guilty and
entering a plea of not guilty, setting aside the verdict of guilty,
or dismissing the accusation or information.


13376. (a) This section applies to the following certificates:
(1) Schoolbus.
(2) School pupil activity bus.
(3) Youth bus.
(4) General public paratransit vehicle.
(5) Vehicle used for the transportation of developmentally
disabled persons.
(b) (1) The department shall revoke a certificate listed in
subdivision (a) for three years if the certificate holder refuses to
submit to a test for, fails to comply with the testing requirements
for, or receives a positive test for a controlled substance, as
specified in Part 382 (commencing with Section 382.101) of Title 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations and Section 34520. However, the
department shall not revoke a certificate under this paragraph if the
certificate holder is in compliance with any rehabilitation or
return to duty program that is imposed by the employer that meets the
controlled substances and alcohol use and testing requirements set
forth in Part 382 (commencing with Section 382.101) of Title 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations. The driver shall be allowed to
participate in a rehabilitation or return to duty program only once
within a three-year period. The employer or program shall report any
subsequent positive test result or drop from the program to the
department on a form approved by the department.
(2) If an applicant refuses to submit to a test for, fails to
comply with the testing requirements for, or receives a positive test
for a controlled substance, the department shall refuse the
application for a certificate listed in subdivision (a) for three
years from the date of the confirmed positive test result.
(3) The carrier that requested the test shall report the refusal,
failure to comply, or positive test result to the department not
later than five days after receiving notification of the test result
on a form approved by the department.
(4) The department shall maintain a record of any action taken for
a refusal, failure to comply, or positive test result in the driving
record of the applicant or certificate holder for three years from
the date of the refusal, failure to comply, or positive test result.

(c) (1) The department may temporarily suspend a schoolbus, school
pupil activity bus, youth bus, or general public paratransit driver
certificate, or temporarily withhold issuance of a certificate to an
applicant, if the holder or applicant is arrested for or charged with
any sex offense, as defined in Section 44010 of the Education Code.

(2) Upon receipt of a notice of temporary suspension, or of the
department's intent to withhold issuance, of a certificate, the
certificate holder or applicant may request a hearing within 10 days
of the effective date of the department's action.
(3) The department shall, upon request of the holder of, or
applicant for, a certificate, within 10 working days of the receipt
of the request, conduct a hearing on whether the public interest
requires suspension or withholding of the certificate pursuant to
paragraph (1).
(4) If the charge is dismissed or results in a finding of not
guilty, the department shall immediately terminate the suspension or
resume the application process, and shall expunge the suspension
action taken pursuant to this subdivision from the record of the
applicant or certificate holder.
(d) An applicant or holder of a certificate may reapply for a
certificate whenever a felony or misdemeanor conviction is reversed
or dismissed. A termination of probation and dismissal of charges
pursuant to Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code or a dismissal of
charges pursuant to Section 1203.4a of the Penal Code is not a
dismissal for purposes of this section.
(e) The determination of the facts pursuant to this section is a
civil matter which is independent of the determination of the person'
s guilt or innocence, has no collateral estoppel effect on a
subsequent criminal prosecution, and does not preclude the litigation
of the same or similar facts in a criminal proceeding.


13377. (a) The department shall not issue or renew, or shall
revoke, the tow truck driver certificate of an applicant or holder
for any of the following causes:
(1) The tow truck driver certificate applicant or holder has been
convicted of a violation of Section 220 of the Penal Code.
(2) The tow truck driver certificate applicant or holder has been
convicted of a violation of paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of
subdivision (a) of Section 261 of the Penal Code.
(3) The tow truck driver certificate applicant or holder has been
convicted of a violation of Section 264.1, 267, 288, or 289 of the
Penal Code.
(4) The tow truck driver certificate applicant or holder has been
convicted of any felony or three misdemeanors as set forth in
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 5164
of the Public Resources Code.
(5) The tow truck driver certificate applicant's or holder's
driving privilege has been suspended or revoked in accordance with
any provisions of this code.
(b) For purposes of this section, a conviction means a plea or
verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo
contendere. For purposes of this section, the record of a
conviction, or a copy thereof certified by the clerk of the court or
by a judge of the court in which the conviction occurred, is
conclusive evidence of the conviction.
(c) Whenever the department receives information from the
Department of Justice, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that a
tow truck driver has been convicted of an offense specified in
paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (a), the department
shall immediately notify the employer and the Department of the
California Highway Patrol.
(d) An applicant or holder of a tow truck driver certificate,
whose certificate was denied or revoked, may reapply for a
certificate whenever the applicable felony or misdemeanor conviction
is reversed or dismissed. If the cause for the denial or revocation
was based on the suspension or revocation of the applicant's or
holder's driving privilege, he or she may reapply for a certificate
upon restoration of his or her driving privilege. A termination of
probation and dismissal of charges pursuant to Section 1203.4 of the
Penal Code or a dismissal of charges pursuant to Section 1203.4a of
the Penal Code is not a dismissal for purposes of this section.


13378. (a) Any applicant for, or holder of, a tow truck driver
certificate who has received a notice of refusal or revocation, may
submit to the department, within 15 days after the mailing of the
notice, a written request for a hearing. Failure to request a
hearing, in writing, within 15 days is a waiver of the right to a
hearing.
(b) Upon receipt by the department of the hearing request, the
department may stay the action until a hearing is conducted and the
final decision is made by the hearing officer. The department shall
not stay the action when there is reasonable cause to believe that
the stay would pose a threat to a member of the motoring public who
may require the services of the tow truck driver in question.
(c) An applicant for, or a holder of, a tow truck driver
certificate, whose certificate has been refused or revoked, is not
entitled to a hearing whenever the action by the department is made
mandatory by this article or any other applicable law or regulation.

(d) Upon receipt of a request for a hearing, and when the
requesting party is entitled to a hearing under this article, the
department shall appoint a hearing officer to conduct a hearing in
accordance with Section 14112.


13380. (a) If a peace officer serves a notice of an order of
suspension pursuant to Section 13388, or arrests any person for a
violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, the peace officer shall
immediately forward to the department a sworn report of all
information relevant to the enforcement action, including information
that adequately identifies the person, a statement of the officer's
grounds for belief that the person violated Section 23136, 23140,
23152, or 23153, a report of the results of any chemical tests that
were conducted on the person or the circumstances constituting a
refusal to submit to or complete the chemical testing pursuant to
Section 13388 or 23612, a copy of any notice to appear under which
the person was released from custody, and, if immediately available,
a copy of the complaint filed with the court. For the purposes of
this section and subdivision (g) of Section 23612, "immediately"
means on or before the end of the fifth ordinary business day
following the arrest, except that with respect to Section 13388 only,
"immediately" has the same meaning as that term is defined in
paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 13388.
(b) The peace officer's sworn report shall be made on forms
furnished or approved by the department.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a report prepared pursuant
to subdivision (a) and received pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 1801, is a sworn report when it bears an entry identifying
the maker of the document or a signature that has been affixed by
means of an electronic device approved by the department.



13382. (a) If the chemical test results for a person who has been
arrested for a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 show that the
person has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person'
s blood, or if the chemical test results for a person who has been
arrested for a violation of Section 23140 show that the person has
0.05 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person's blood,
the peace officer, acting on behalf of the department, shall serve a
notice of order of suspension or revocation of the person's privilege
to operate a motor vehicle personally on the arrested person.
(b) If the peace officer serves the notice of order of suspension
or revocation, the peace officer shall take possession of any driver'
s license issued by this state which is held by the person. When the
officer takes possession of a valid driver's license, the officer
shall issue, on behalf of the department, a temporary driver's
license. The temporary driver's license shall be an endorsement on
the notice of the order of suspension or revocation and shall be
valid for 30 days from the date of arrest.
(c) The peace officer shall immediately forward a copy of the
completed notice of order of suspension form, and any driver's
license taken into possession under subdivision (b), with the report
required by Section 13380, to the department. For the purposes of
this section, "immediately" means on or before the end of the fifth
ordinary business day following the arrest.


13384. (a) The department shall not issue or renew a driver's
license to any person unless the person consents in writing to submit
to a chemical test or tests of that person's blood, breath, or urine
pursuant to Section 23612, or a preliminary alcohol screening test
pursuant to Section 23136, when requested to do so by a peace
officer.
(b) All application forms for driver's licenses or driver's
license renewal notices shall include a requirement that the
applicant sign the following declaration as a condition of licensure:

"I agree to submit to a chemical test of my blood, breath, or
urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of
my blood when testing is requested by a peace officer acting in
accordance with Section 13388 or 23612 of the Vehicle Code."
(c) The department is not, incident to this section, required to
maintain, copy, or store any information other than that to be
incorporated into the standard application form.


13386. (a) (1) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall certify or
cause to be certified ignition interlock devices required by Article
5 (commencing with Section 23575) of Chapter 2 of Division 11.5 and
publish a list of approved devices.
(2) (A) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall ensure that
ignition interlock devices that have been certified according to the
requirements of this section continue to meet certification
requirements. The department may periodically require manufacturers
to indicate in writing whether the devices continue to meet
certification requirements.
(B) The department may use denial of certification, suspension or
revocation of certification, or decertification of an ignition
interlock device in another state as an indication that the
certification requirements are not met, if either of the following
apply:
(i) The denial of certification, suspension or revocation of
certification, or decertification in another state constitutes a
violation by the manufacturer of Article 2.55 (commencing with
Section 125.00) of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of the Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations.
(ii) The denial of certification for an ignition interlock device
in another state was due to a failure of an ignition interlock device
to meet the standards adopted by the regulation set forth in clause
(i), specifically Sections 1 and 2 of the model specification for
breath alcohol ignition interlock devices, as published by notice in
the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 67, Tuesday, April 7, 1992, on
pages 11774 to 11787, inclusive.
(C) Failure to continue to meet certification requirements shall
result in suspension or revocation of certification of ignition
interlock devices.
(b) The department shall utilize information from an independent
laboratory to certify ignition interlock devices on or off the
premises of the manufacturer or manufacturer's agent, in accordance
with the guidelines. The cost of certification shall be borne by the
manufacturers of ignition interlock devices. If the certification
of a device is suspended or revoked, the manufacturer of the device
shall be responsible for, and shall bear the cost of, the removal of
the device and the replacement of a certified device of the
manufacturer or another manufacturer.
(c) No model of ignition interlock device shall be certified
unless it meets the accuracy requirements and specifications provided
in the guidelines adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
(d) All manufacturers of ignition interlock devices that meet the
requirements of subdivision (c) and are certified in a manner
approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles, who intend to market
the devices in this state, first shall apply to the Department of
Motor Vehicles on forms provided by that department. The application
shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount not to exceed the amount
necessary to cover the costs incurred by the department in carrying
out this section.
(e) The department shall ensure that standard forms and procedures
are developed for documenting decisions and compliance and
communicating results to relevant agencies. These forms shall
include all of the following:
(1) An "Option to Install," to be sent by the Department of Motor
Vehicles to repeat offenders along with the mandatory order of
suspension or revocation. This shall include the alternatives
available for early license reinstatement with the installation of an
ignition interlock device and shall be accompanied by a toll-free
telephone number for each manufacturer of a certified ignition
interlock device. Information regarding approved installation
locations shall be provided to drivers by manufacturers with ignition
interlock devices that have been certified in accordance with this
section.
(2) A "Verification of Installation" to be returned to the
department by the reinstating offender upon application for
reinstatement. Copies shall be provided for the manufacturer or the
manufacturer's agent.
(3) A "Notice of Noncompliance" and procedures to ensure continued
use of the ignition interlock device during the restriction period
and to ensure compliance with maintenance requirements. The
maintenance period shall be standardized at 60 days to maximize
monitoring checks for equipment tampering.
(f) Every manufacturer and manufacturer's agent certified by the
department to provide ignition interlock devices shall adopt fee
schedules that provide for the payment of the costs of the device by
applicants in amounts commensurate with the applicant's ability to
pay.


13388. (a) If a peace officer lawfully detains a person under 21
years of age who is driving a motor vehicle, and the officer has
reasonable cause to believe that the person is in violation of
Section 23136, the officer shall request that the person take a
preliminary alcohol screening test to determine the presence of
alcohol in the person, if a preliminary alcohol screening test device
is immediately available. If a preliminary alcohol screening test
device is not immediately available, the officer may request the
person to submit to chemical testing of his or her blood, breath, or
urine, conducted pursuant to Section 23612.
(b) If the person refuses to take, or fails to complete, the
preliminary alcohol screening test or refuses to take or fails to
complete a chemical test if a preliminary alcohol device is not
immediately available, or if the person takes the preliminary alcohol
screening test and that test reveals a blood-alcohol concentration
of 0.01 percent or greater, or if the results of a chemical test
reveal a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, the
officer shall proceed as follows:
(1) The officer, acting on behalf of the department, shall serve
the person with a notice of an order of suspension of the person's
driving privilege.
(2) The officer shall take possession of any driver's license
issued by this state which is held by the person. When the officer
takes possession of a valid driver's license, the officer shall
issue, on behalf of the department, a temporary driver's license.
The temporary driver's license shall be an endorsement on the notice
of the order of suspension and shall be valid for 30 days from the
date of issuance, or until receipt of the order of suspension from
the department, whichever occurs first.
(3) The officer immediately shall forward a copy of the completed
notice of order of suspension form, and any driver's license taken
into possession under paragraph (2), with the report required by
Section 13380, to the department. For the purposes of this
paragraph, "immediately" means on or before the end of the fifth
ordinary business day after the notice of order of suspension was
served.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a preliminary alcohol
screening test device is an instrument designed and used to measure
the presence of alcohol in a person based on a breath sample.



13390. Notwithstanding Section 40000.1, a violation of Section
23136 is neither an infraction nor a public offense, as defined in
Section 15 of the Penal Code. A violation of Section 23136 is only
subject to civil penalties. Those civil penalties shall be
administered by the department through the civil administrative
procedures set forth in this code.


13392. Any person whose license is suspended or delayed issuance
pursuant to Section 13388 shall pay to the department, in addition to
any other fees required for the reissuance, return, or issuance of a
driver's license, one hundred dollars ($100) for the reissuance,
return, or issuance of his or her driver's license.


www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles

San Diego DUI attorney news

One county program to help the region's worst alcoholics get off the bottle and on with their lives has won a state award.

The Serial Inebriate Program – or SIP – won the award for Outstanding Achievements in the Alcohol and Drug Field from the County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association of California at the association's annual dinner in May in Sacramento.

Two San Diego police officers – Sgt. Richard Schnell and Officer John Liening – came up with the idea for the program after tiring of seeing chronic alcoholics continually eat up medical and legal resources.

In 2000, SIP was established to stop the merry-go-round. Individuals arrested several times for drinking-related offenses are offered a choice: Go to jail or go to SIP, which provides housing, medical care and job training for clients, many of whom have been living on the streets for years.

SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net

One California DUI Juror's Perspective & Jury Service:

A couple of weeks ago, I was stuck on a criminal jury in California: Two counts of California DUI - drunk driving. Here’s the outcome.

Starting quickly — and this battle would continue throughout the California DUI trial — the two California DUI lawyers vigorously contested facts, statements, theories. They were both well-prepared.

The California DUI defense attorney, endlessly hammered that everything in this case — the police investigation, the eventual alcohol tests — happened long after the defendant had ceased driving.

The California DUI Prosecutor, for the people, hit again and again on the police interrogation and various test results.

One smiled; the other did not.

We broke for lunch. I wanted to get as far away, mentally and physically, as I could. On both days of the trial, I lunched. To me, that was my reward for having to endure the trial.

To be sure, all we did was sit and listen. But, by the end of the first day (and my experience was confirmed by my fellow jurors), I was physically exhausted. It was like the worst days of high school, having to stay awake and listen closely in geometry class.

That evening, safely back in the warm surroundings of the town, I was invited out for a drink. I had more than a couple; I needed them. But I was walking home.

As the witnesses appeared over the two days of the trial, I quickly picked up a valuable nugget that I’m pleased to pass on. If you’re stopped for a DUI investigation by the CHP, you’re probably screwed. Their training, their assessment techniques, procedures, instruments, are truly impressive. Finger tapping, hand flapping, eyeball tracking — highway patrolmen have all the tricks they need to reach the decision point of requesting a preliminary breath test (which is voluntary).

In the preliminary alcohol breath test up at the lake, and the official California DUI test almost an hour later down at the jail, the defendant scored at .17 percent or higher — more than twice the legal limit. But, when had he been drinking and what was his condition when he had been behind the wheel of his pickup truck? These were two of the key questions we, the jury, would have to answer.

Just before lunch the second day of the California DUI trial, we heard the California DUI lawyers’ summations, the California DUI judge’s instructions, and we headed off to the jury room. Having not been previously permitted to discuss the case, even among ourselves, we 12 jurors had barely spoken to one another. A bit apprehensively, we sat down at a square table. The bailiff would be our lifeline to the outside world.

Almost immediately, a young student on the California DUI jury (I’ll get even with him someday) remembered that in jury selection it had come out that I had served on a couple of juries. So, the kid volunteered me as foreman. The informal vote was 11-to-1. Everyone, except me, seemed pleased. I made my first executive decision — lunch!

Back to work: We had two charges to determine, California DUI and .08 percent blood alcohol. How to begin? I suggested we handle each separately and that we might begin with a couple of straw votes, just to gauge where we all were. On the former, it was 10-2 guilty, on the latter, evenly split. My votes were not guilty and guilty. I was very confident of my views. Both would be turned around.

During the trial, we were reminded that in California it is, in fact, legal to drink and drive. But, you can’t drive, regardless of apparent ability, with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or higher. And here’s the key point: you can be under .08 percent but be guilty of DUI. That I didn’t know, and that’s scary.

State laws differ, but in California, “driving under the influence” means being “impaired.” And being impaired means (to me) not driving as a regular, normal sober person would. In other words, it’s both a judgment call and a pretty low bar (in my opinion). You can be legally sober, yet be guilty of a California DUI .

I have to thank one of my fellow jurors for this point. We were not making much progress on count one, California DUI, with me and another fellow as the two hold-outs. So, she reread out loud the precise charge and the judge’s instructions. I saw then that I was wrong, that we could and should confidently conclude that there was enough evidence to show that the defendant was driving impaired.

The second count was complicated. The breath tests, hours later, had indicated an alcohol level more than twice the legal limit (.08 percent). So what was his level, earlier, when he had been driving? This was difficult. Timelines, mathematical extrapolations, and such were the contents of our discussions. We concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving.

I asked for formal votes on both counts (in case our conversations on the second had affected opinions back on the first). We were unanimous: guilty on California DUI; not guilty on .08 percent. I signed the decision forms and we called the bailiff. It took a while to reassemble all the players, but eventually we were marched back into the courtroom.

I didn’t know what would happen then; would I, as foreman, have to announce the verdicts? I really didn’t want to do that. I didn’t have to. I just had to reassure the judge that we had, in fact, reached verdicts. With what I hoped was a firm voice, I said, “Yes, sir.”

Then it got interesting. After announcing our judgments, the Judge said he would proceed immediately to the penalty phase. He invited us, the jurors, after our official release, to come around to the public entrance of the courtroom and sit in on the punishment decision. Ten of the 12 of us did so.

The judge told the defendant that in California “We don’t punish people for having a jury trial.” That is, he wasn’t going to be punished more than if he had pleaded guilty. But, and this was intriguing, the judge “congratulated” the defendant on not taking the stand and thus not stating that he had only drunk two shots of tequila (that’s what he had told the police). This California DUI Judge clearly thought that would have been lying, and he would have thrown the book at him.

And it became clear why the defendant contested the case. He was a truck driver; he had immediately lost his professional license upon his California DUI arrest. He needed to win in court to regain his job. He was a first offender. Hence his punishment consisted of fines and payments (of a couple of thousand dollars), California DUI - drunk driving courses, and two days of community service.

I left the California DUI courthouse drained. Mentally wiped out. I said goodbye to a couple of fellow jurors. Never got their names.

I drove home satisfied with our work, but delighted it was over. I heard on the radio that Mothers Against Drunk Driving was campaigning in Sacramento for a new law that would put ignition interlock devices on all new cars sold in the state. I decided it was the best new idea I had heard in a long time.

Man accused of drunk driving twice in 2 hours

Only in Wisconsin: a Sheboygan man is behind bars after being arrested twice for drunken driving within two hours early Tuesday. Police say the 24-year-old driver was stopped by an officer about 1:50 a.m. after he was spotted driving the wrong way on a one-way street in Sheboygan.

The man was arrested for a DUI, cited for driving drunk and released to his brother about 3 a.m. at the police station.

Police say about 40 minutes later, an officer saw the same man, driving the same vehicle at 20 mph over the 30-mph speed limit.

He was pulled over and cited again for OWI / DWI / operating while intoxicated. This time he was taken to the Sheboygan County Detention Center. sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/articles

A man was hospitalized Thursday and facing San Diego DUI - drunk driving charges following a San Diego DUI - drunk driving rollover crash in Vista, San Diego DUI - drunk driving lawyers say.

Mario Julian Jacobo Orozco was allegedly San Diego DUI - drunk driving when he lost control of his 2002 GMC sport utility vehicle in the 400 block of eastbound East Bobier Avenue around 7 p.m. Thursday, said San Diego DUI - drunk driving attorney sources.

Orozco struck a curb and rolled the SUV into an embankment, San Diego DUI - drunk driving lawyers heard, adding that he was trapped in his vehicle until he was freed by firefighters.

Orozco was flown to Palomar Medical Center in Escondido for observation, San Diego DUI - drunk driving attorneys are told. No one else was hurt in the San Diego DUI - drunk driving crash.

sandiegoduilawyer.com/blog

DUI lawyers say that former Virginia Tech quarterback Marcus Vick was arrested early Friday and charged with DUI driving under the influence and eluding police.

Vick, the brother of former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, signed as a free agent receiver with the Miami Dolphins after a troubled career at Virginia Tech. He was released by the Dolphins in 2007.

Police said a uniformed bicycle patrol officer observed Vick and a female involved in an altercation in a car around 2 a.m. The officer asked if his assistance was needed, then asked Vick for his driver's license. Police say Vick then sped away, but was stopped minutes later.

Vick, 24, allegedly failed a DUI field sobriety test and was charged with DUI, misdemeanor eluding police, reckless driving, driving on the wrong side of the road and driving on a suspended license. The passenger, Delicia Cordon of Miami, Fla., was charged with being drunk in public.

Vick was released from jail at 6 a.m. Friday on $1,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in court Monday, said DUI attorneys.

Vick was kicked off the Virginia Tech team after repeated brushes with the law and misbehavior on and off the field. In March 2006, following his junior year, Vick's guilty plea to traffic violations in Hampton brought the end of his college career because Virginia Tech had him under a zero tolerance policy, according to DUI lawyers.

sandiegodui.com

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer news

A man facing sentencing on a drunken-driving conviction couldn't get a ride to court. So he start walking. And walking. Stephen Shoemaker was scheduled to appear at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday for sentencing.

Shoemaker, 33, of Shippensburg, doesn't have a car or driver's license. So he started hoofing it to the courthouse at dawn. He kept walking for about 25 miles in 90-plus-degree heat.

Shoemaker arrived about 3:30 p.m. - after a detour to a hospital, where he was treated for dehydration.

Judge Edward Guido had issued an arrest warrant when Shoemaker failed to appear. But he agreed to defer sentencing until July. Guido said he hesitated only because "that means he'll have to walk back to Shippensburg."

Deputy Public Defender Anthony Adams volunteered to give Shoemaker a ride home.

sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/blog

OCEANSIDE, California

Last month, highway patrol officers visited 20 classrooms at El Camino High School to misrpresent/announce some horrible news: Students had been killed in car wrecks over the weekend. Classmates wept. Some became hysterical.

A few hours and many tears later, though, the pain turned to fury when the teenagers learned that it was all a hoax—a scared-straight exercise designed by school officials to dramatize the consequences of drinking and driving.

As seniors prepare for graduation parties Friday, school officials in the largely prosperous San Diego suburb are defending themselves against allegations they went too far.

At assemblies where speakers talked about the dangers of drunk driving, some students held posters that read: "Death is real. Don't play with our emotions."

Michelle de Gracia, 16, was in physics class when an officer announced her missing classmate David, a popular basketball player, died instantly after being rear-ended by a drunk driver. She felt nauseated but was too frozen to cry.

"They got the shock they wanted," she said.

Some of her classmates were hysterical, prompting the teacher to tell them immediately the death was staged.

"People started yelling at the teacher," she said. "It was pretty hectic."

Others, including many who heard the "news" between classes, were left in the dark until the 26 missing students reappeared hours later to enact a fatal traffic accident.

Carolyn Magos, 15, thought there might have been a gang shooting when she saw clusters of kids crying in the hall.

"You feel betrayed by your teachers and administrators, these people you trust," Magos said. "But then I felt selfish for feeling that way, because, I mean, if it saves one life it's worth it."

The stunt was a twist on a program called Every 15 Minutes, which was designed in the early 1990s, when someone was killed an average of once every 15 minutes in alcohol-related accidents. By 2006, the frequency dropped to once every 39 minutes, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is not associated with the program.

In California, the state highway patrol, local law enforcement agencies and schools use the curriculum authored by the Every 15 Minutes Organization, based in Lehigh Valley, Pa.

Here's how the program normally works: Students chosen to symbolize the dead are pulled out of their classes by someone in a Grim Reaper costume while their obituaries are read aloud.

A few hours later, they reappear in ghoulish makeup to enact a traffic accident at an assembly. Rescue workers whisk "victims" from a mangled car to a hospital or morgue. The "dead" then spend the night at a hotel isolated from friends and family before returning the next day for an assembly with parents and professional speakers.

At El Camino, the students who were in on the secret shunned the Grim Reaper skit.

"We didn't want kids laughing at it," said Michelle Molin, 17, a junior. "It's like Halloween."

El Camino officials agreed to try to give students the experience of real grief. They defend how they handled the exercise.

"They were traumatized, but we wanted them to be traumatized," said guidance counselor Lori Tauber. "That's how they get the message."

The school had counselors on standby to calm kids who were visibly upset but didn't anticipate the power of cell phones to spread the word.

Before class, a freshman who knew her sister was playing dead texted her friends to say the girl had been killed. Word spread quickly among the school's 3,100 students, many of whom clustered between periods crying.

Even administrators who knew about the program thought there had been a terrible coincidence.

"I got a call from the principal's secretary saying, 'I heard one of our Every 15 Minutes students was really in an accident!'" said Tauber. "And I was like, 'No, they're right here.'"

Dean Wilson, executive director of Every 15 Minutes, said he didn't endorse the hoax. He knew of only a handful of schools where students were told a death was real.

In 2002, a high school in Eagle Grove, Iowa, north of Des Moines, used a hoax death to "step up" the program, said Mark Kay. His son, Aaron, dropped out of sight after school, while his brother messaged friends asking if they'd seen him. The next morning, students were invited to view a coffin in the school foyer where the boy was playing dead.

Oceanside schools superintendent Larry Perondi said he fielded only a few calls from parents, while the PTA chapter said it had not heard any complaints.

Wendy Reynolds, a former prosecutor who spoke at El Camino High about her experience being orphaned by a drunk driver, said most students would benefit.


SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

San Diego DUI attorneys say that when District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis cleared police officer Aaron Mansker in the shooting of former San Diego Chargers player Steve Foley, Foley's history of arrests for battery, domestic violence, public intoxication and discharging a firearm were a factor.

In Foley's civil trial, however, it is Mansker's history that was placed under a microscope.

Court papers filed by Foley's attorneys painted an unflattering view of Mansker, the Coronado police officer who, while off duty, shot the ex-Charger three times outside of his Poway home.

In the October 2006 preliminary hearing for Foley's companion, Lisa Maree Gaut, Mansker was asked, "Other than your verbal command, how does he know you're a police officer?" Mansker replied, "Verbal, I guess …"

Mansker was then asked, "Wouldn't it be better to show your badge?"

"Would've been better, yes," responded Mansker.

In a photo taken by sheriff's deputies of Mansker after the shooting, his badge was visible.

However, in a deposition, Mansker admitted the badge was covered his T-shirt at the time of the shooting and was not visible.

In their court filing, Foley's attorneys said Coronado hired Mansker after 10 other law enforcement agencies had previously rejected his applications for employment. Two agencies cited Mansker's immaturity and lack of life experience.

During his first week on the job, documents showed while off duty and driving home in his own car, Mansker's speeds were calculated to be in excess of 90 mph. Mansker wrote, "My conduct was viewed by another and seen as reckless."

Going deeper into Mansker's professional history, the court documents revealed that he previously worked as a service officer at Palomar College and was reprimanded for "his negative attitude …impulsiveness to make decisions based on emotion instead of careful thought and violations of several Palomar College Police Department policies."

"As he started reaching into his waistband, with his right hand turning towards me, I fired two shots," Mansker said in the October 2006 hearing.

Before the Foley incident, Mansker kept a MySpace page and called himself "Superman." Foley's attorneys argued that Mansker has "a bizarre fascination and over identification with the superhero, Superman," inferring that Mansker was overzealous when he pursued the legally drunk Foley in his personal car.

"A lot more information tends to come out in civil cases regarding the conduct of both parties; a clearer picture tends to emerge," said Bill Flores of El Grupo.

Flores is a retired assistant sheriff with 29 years in law enforcement. He represents El Grupo, a minority rights group that urged the state attorney general to review the Foley shooting and five other officer-involved shootings in the North County. The group said the district attorney was too cozy with local law enforcement.

"We've noticed that the district attorney's office in several officer involved shootings has released negative information on the victim of the shooting, which we find troubling," said Flores.

Only when the victim sues is information about the officer released, like in the Foley case.

Foley's lawyers argued that his injuries were so severe they ended his football career.

As for monetary damages, Foley is seeking $600,000 in medical expenses, $3 million in past economic loss, $11 million to $38 million in special damages and future earnings and $5 million to $7 million for pain and suffering.

A representative for Dumanis said the district attorney stands by the decision to clear Mansker of criminal liability.

However, the upcoming trial is about civil liability, and a jury will decide that outcome.

I-Team calls to Mansker's attorneys and the Coronado Police Department were not returned.

Foley's attorneys said it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.

Foley pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DUI related to the shooting.

However, he has more criminal trouble as he was recently indicted in Texas after two of his pit bulls attacked a woman and her puppy, according to San Diego DUI attorneys.

Grant to Help Fight California DUI in Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office gets money from state to target drunk driving in northern California county.

The Contra Costa Sheriff's Office has received a state grant to fund efforts to catch drivers suspected of driving under the influence in California.

A $662,000 grant will be distributed over a three year period to help fund the county's 'Avoid The 25' program, which targets drunk drivers through increased enforcement activities. The program name comes from the combined California DUI effort of the county's 25 law enforcement agencies. Its efforts include roaming DUI patrols and sobriety checkpoints. The grant will also pay for a public awareness campaign about the consequences and dangers of drunk driving in California.

A separate grant of $620,115 was given to the Contra Costa County Probation Department to fund programs targeting felony California DUI offenders. According to county statistics, law enforcement agencies arrested more than 600 motorists for DUI offenses in December 2007 alone.

A suspected San Diego DUI / drunk driver was arrested this morning after he allegedly crashed into a parked car in Bay Ho, allegedly seriously injuring his passenger, San Diego DUI lawyers said.

The man was driving a 1998 Mitsubishi north on Clairemont Drive near Indian Way just after 4:30 a.m. when he allegedly hit the car and his vehicle rolled several times, San Diego DUI attorneys said.

The passenger allegedly suffered a broken neck and a torn ear and was taken to a hospital. The driver had bumps and bruises and was also taken to a hospital, per San Diego DUI lawyers.

Both men were said to be in their 40s. The driver faces San Diego DUI - driving under the influence charges, according to San Diego DUI lawyers.

SanDiegoDUIhelp.com/duiblog

DUI Prosecutors from the Illinois attorney general's office said Wednesday they will need to talk with the second officer involved in former Lake County Chief Judge David Hall's DUI arrest before deciding whether to continue prosecuting the case.

Hall was charged with driving under the influence and resisting arrest after he was pulled over in April by Vernon Hills Police Officer Jesse Goldsmith. Hall said Goldsmith, a police officer since 1991, pepper-sprayed him while Hall was sitting in his car.

Goldsmith, 42, died of a heart attack on June 2, meaning his police reports about the arrest could be ruled inadmissible in court, DUI defense lawyers say.

During a court appearance Wednesday, the prosecutors, judge and defense team all expressed their condolences to the Vernon Hills Police Department and to Goldsmith's family.

Prosecutor Daniel Nikolic said he would like to speak with the officer who provided backup to Goldsmith before pursuing the case further.

Goldsmith likely would have been a witness in the case, as officers are routinely called to testify to explain their actions and police reports. It's unclear what the second officer may have witnessed or when that officer arrived at the scene.

No video recordings exist of the traffic stop. Police said one video camera had a malfunction, and the hard drive on the second one was full. Hall's defense attorneys have filled a motion to quash the arrest report.

Goldsmith's report states he pulled over Hall on April 26 about 1:45 a.m. on Illinois Highway 60 because Hall's car had been weaving across the center line. Hall refused Breathalyzer and field sobriety tests, the report states. Goldsmith's report also stated he noticed a strong odor of alcohol on Hall.

Hall resigned as chief judge after the arrest and has pleaded not guilty to all charges. A status hearing on the case is scheduled for June 25 in Waukegan.

SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/blog

DUI lawyers and DUI Police have heard many excuses from suspected drunk drivers over the years.

But DUI police say what they heard from a Toms River man is one for the books:

He told Drunk Driving Police he was driving around until he was sober enough to go home, fearing his mother would know he was drunk.

But before he could make it home Monday, police say 36-year-old Edward Defreitas crashed into an ambulance, causing it to overturn in the Route 70 circle in Lakehurst.

Defreitas is being held in the Ocean County Jail on numerous charges, including aggravated assault, drunk driving and drug offenses.

Authorities said the injuries to two paramedics in the ambulance were not life-threatening.

SanDiegoDUI.com

A mother who was intoxicated during her labor at a Polish hospital gave birth to a baby girl who was almost 15 times over the country's adult drunk-driving limit.

The baby girl, born Monday, had a blood alcohol level of 0.29 percent. Poland's drunk driving limit is 0.02 percent.

In the U.S., the adult drunk-driving limit is 0.08.

Doctors at a hospital in Otwock, on the outskirts of Warsaw, Poland, called the police after the drunk expectant mother checked in to give birth.

The 38-year-old mother's blood alcohol level was 0.12 percent, which is the equivalent of drinking a bottle of wine, according to the report. The mother could face up to five years in prison on charges of endangering the life and health of her child, it is reported. Doctors said the baby is not in immediate danger, but the alcohol may impact her development.

sandiegoduihelp.com

DUI technology is faulty

DUI Defense attorney says state knew of uneven performance

Intoxilyzer 5000 ­- meet a supposed "smoking gun."

A Roseville-based attorney maintains he has proof that more than 250 alcohol breath-test machines used by law enforcement officials in Minnesota are faulty and that the state has been well aware of the problem for months.

A spokeswoman for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said not so fast ­ the machines work fine.

Charles A. Ramsay, a DUI defense attorney, on Monday released a copy of what he calls the "smoking gun" e-mail from a BCA toxicologist to Intoxilyzer 5000 manufacturer CMI Inc. of Owensboro, Ky.

The e-mail, dated Sept. 27, 2006, indicates that the Intoxilyzer "on occasion" printed out different blood-alcohol readings than what it displayed on its screen and that the amount of air required to provide a breath sample varied depending upon the version of software running the machine.

CMI updated the Minnesota version of its Intoxilyzer software in summer 2005. It was first awarded the contract in 1997.

"We performed a variety of tests under different conditions using each version and the results were not the same," wrote toxicologist Pat Pulju in the e-mail to other state and CMI officials.

Ramsay said the machine might record a hard puff as a "test refusal," which can carry greater civil and criminal penalties than failing the test entirely.

He said he represents multiple clients who were charged with gross misdemeanors after making honest efforts to blow as hard
as they could into the Intoxilyzer.

"If you blew just as hard under the old software ... you're fine. You would not only give a sufficient sample, but ... you'd pass the test. You'd go home. Nothing happens," he said.

On Friday, Ramsay filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit between Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner Michael Campion and CMI. The lawsuit seeks to force the manufacturer to release a copy of the computer software to the state. Campion is represented by the Minnesota attorney general's office.

State officials had limited immediate reaction Monday. "The BCA has a high level of confidence in the reliability of the Intoxilyzer," said Christine Krueger, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

Ramsay's is just the latest salvo in a statewide push by DUI attorneys to examine and invalidate CMI's software program.

Last month, the Minnesota Court of Appeals delivered a soft blow to two alleged drunken drivers who challenged their breath-test evidence by asking to inspect the patented computer code.

The decision overturns part, but not all, of the so-called "source code defense."

A May 20 appeals decision found that the attorneys for the two Dakota County drivers did not make an adequate argument for why examining the Intoxilyzer software would help determine if the instruments are defective.

The appellants were Dale Lee Underdahl, of Northfield, and Timothy Arlen Brunner, of Farmington. The men were charged in Dakota County, in separate incidents, with driving with alcohol concentrations of more than .08 percent.

The appeals decision noted that while the defense has broad powers to compile evidence during the "discovery process," previous decisions have found that lawyers cannot go on an undefined "fishing expedition."

Across Minnesota, judges have reinstated dozens of revoked driver's licenses and thrown out criminal charges against drunken-driving defendants as a result of the state's failure to produce the source code, said Underdahl's attorney, Jeffrey Sheridan.

Nothing in the latest court opinion prevents DUI attorneys from seeking the source code in the future, but the bar to justify such a request has been set higher, Sheridan said.

Judges in more than 100 cases, including the Minnesota Supreme Court, have attempted to force the state to turn over the computer program for inspection.

"We do plan to seek further review of this decision from the Supreme Court," Sheridan said. "It's completely contrary to what the Supreme Court has already said. ... We'll keep slugging it out."

State officials have said that although they contracted CMI for a Minnesota model of the machine, the state does not have access to the instrument's patented source code and is unable to disclose it.

California DUI lawyer news

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- A second lieutenant with the 412th Operations Group was sentenced with a $25,000 fine and a reprimand during a general court-martial here May 20 through 22.

The lieutenant pled not guilty to a charge and specification of obtaining a fraudulent appointment as a commissioned officer in the Air Force. The lieutenant was accused of procuring his commission through deliberate concealment of an arrest and charge of driving under the influence of alcohol while enrolled in the Reserve Officers Training Corps. Had the accused revealed his DUI while he was in ROTC, he would have been disenrolled from ROTC and would not have received a commission in the Air Force.

The sentence will be reviewed by the general court-martial convening authority before final action is taken in the case. The convening authority has the power to approve the sentence as adjudged or grant clemency and reduce the sentence if deemed appropriate.

For more information on courts-martial, consult Air Force Instruction 51-201, the Manual for Courts-Martial, or call the Legal Office at 277-4310.

SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/blog San Diego California DUI lawyer

If you want to avoid a San Diego DUI, wouldn't you want a cute teddy bear to shout: "You haven't been drinking, have you!"

iXs Research Corporation is developing a robotic teddy bear that also functions as a talking navigation system.

The teddy bear, which we'll call "Rob," has six joints in his arms and neck he uses to motion while giving directions. Rob is one foot tall and can also be used to keep drunk drivers off the road. If his alcohol detection sensor smells alcohol, he'll ask the driver: "You haven't been drinking, have you," upon which the driver will hopefully let someone else drive instead of throwing Rob in the trunk.

Best of all, though, Rob rewards you when you stroke his head. Pat his head and you'll hear information about nearby landmarks, but there's no word on how many landmarks about which he has knowledge.

Interestingly, the company wants to make future versions of Rob smaller, "and we'd like to offer a variety of shapes, including other characters and a plain mechanical version," said iXs Research Corporation CEO Fuminori Yamasaki.

The company is hoping to make the teddy bear available next year.

So we'll leave this to you, WOT readers, in what shape or creature would you like your version of Rob?

SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles

San Diego DUI attorney news

SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles
SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/blog

Alabama may be one of the first states in the country to require DUI convictions to stay on a person's record for life.

Almost all states have a limit as to when prior misdemeanor DUI convictions can be considered when there is a new offense occurring within a certain number of years.

In Alabama, a new law would make it clear that anybody who has three prior drunk driving convictions and picks up a fourth drunk driving offense during their lifetime, the forth offense can be charged as a felony.

In California, a fourth DUI offense within 10 years can now be alleged as a felony.

In the near future, California may also eliminate the 10 year window and will have DUI convictions stay on a person's record for lifetime. If that law is enacted, a fourth offense picked up during a person's lifetime could be considered a felony.

San Diego DUI lawyer news

From Canada comes another example of government using drunk driving prosecutions to generate money. In Ontario, a new law will allow the DUI courts to impound a vehicle involved in a drunk driving offense if the vehicle was either owned or driven by somebody whose license was suspended for drunk driving at least twice over a 10 year period.

After the vehicle is sold, anyone injured in a drunk driving incident can apply for compensation to spend the proceeds. Hmmm. Will the government in Ontario take a substantial portion of the proceeds before any compensation is paid to any victim?

There is an exception to the forfeiture in that the vehicle can be released to the owner if the owner agrees to install an ignition lock that requires the driver to pass a breath test or agree that convicted drunk drivers will not have access to the vehicle. There may also fees in order for an owner to retrieve his vehicle, in addition to the fees to install the ignition interlock.

San Diego DUI attorney news

In Indiana, as part of a sentence after being convicted of DUI - drunk driving causing serious bodily injury, a woman was required to leave the wrecked car in her front yard until she completes 3 years of probation.

The woman also had a blood alcohol level of a .317, nearly four times the DUI legal limit in Indiana. This was also her third DUI drunk driving offense. What the DUI sentencing judge probably did was create a traffic hazard as a result of the distraction caused by placing the wrecked car in the woman's front yard for three years.

San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney .net

sandiegodui.com

ASPEN — A technicality spared an Idaho man from a possible drunk driving conviction Friday in Pitkin County Court.

Jeremy Veasey, of Meridian, Idaho, was charged with drunk driving after he allegedly drove onto a crowded Hyman Avenue pedestrian mall in downtown Aspen in the early morning hours following St. Patrick’s Day in 2007.

His DUI defense attorney, Dan Shipp of Basalt, asked for a jury trial, but jurors only sat through part of the case before they were dismissed early Friday afternoon when Shipp discovered an error.

Officials with the district attorney’s office failed to provide a certification form for the police officer who had operated the Breathalyzer machine that officers use to measure the alcohol level in drunk driving suspects.

Attorneys excused the jury and settled the case.

Veasey pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of driving while ability impaired, an offense that resulted in an eight-point penalty on his license. He also pleaded guilty to a careless driving charge with a one-year deferred sentence.

Before the trial, Veasey voluntarily took drunk driving classes and underwent treatment.

A salesman in Idaho, Veasey said keeping his license was important to his work, and told the judge that he had only gone out that night to pick up some friends who were out.

He blew a 0.16 on the Breathalyzer (though his attorneys disputed the accuracy of the machine).

He also was sentenced to 24 hours of public service and ordered to pay $200 in fines.

Aspen police officers reported that on St. Patrick’s Day — March 17, 2007 — a silver SUV driven by Veasey turned onto the Hyman Avenue mall across from the Wheeler Opera House.

Officer Joe Holman, who was patrolling on foot, spotted the vehicle and stopped the man. Holman reported that the man failed to pass the roadside sobriety test and later blew a high blood alcohol reading at the Pitkin County jail.

In opening arguments to a jury of six, Deputy District Attorney Richard Nedlin said that Veasey claimed he’d had only three drinks, but said officers reported that Veasey had watery, red eyes and stumbled when he got out of his vehicle.

“Human frailty is alive and well at the Aspen Police Department,” DUI Defense Lawyer Shipp said in his opening arguments, claiming that there were not adequate signs to tell Veasey not to drive down the pedestrian mall. Shipp said that Aspen officers had fumbled their investigation and used a faulty Breathalyzer. Tthe attorneys settled the case.

DUI lawyer news

Former NFL star quarterback Ken Stabler was arrested and charged with reckless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol, according to DUI lawyers.

Stabler, now a radio analyst for University of Alabama football, was released from jail on $1,000 bond nearly 13 hours after his arrest, DUI attorneys said Monday.

The 62-year-old ex-Crimson Tide quarterback was pulled over for a traffic offense about 12:30 a.m. Sunday, said DUI lawyer sources who declined to specify what led police to pull Stabler over in the town near the Gulf coast.

Stabler pleaded guilty to drunken driving following a 2001 arrest in Orange Beach. Authorities dropped drug and reckless driving charges under a plea deal. In 1995, Stabler pleaded no contest to a DUI charge in nearby Escambia County, Fla, according to DUI attorney information.

www.SanDiegoDUI.com

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney news

Police trainer Devallis Rutledge has a questionable article. http://www.policemag.com/Current-Issue/

Now we know how bad cops are trained and why they behave the way they do.

Here is the latest from him in which he trains:

"The Atwater ruling means that law enforcement officers and agencies cannot be sued under [1983] for an arrest that may violate state restrictions, as long as the arrest is based on probable cause." ...

"The Moore ruling means that evidence discovered during a search incident to an arrest supported by PC is not suppressible in the majority of state courts." ...

"An arrest based on probable cause satisfies the Fourth Amendment, whether or not it complies w/ statutory restrictions, and whether or not the offense is punishable by incarceration. " ...

[Police 2008]

SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com FREE SAN DIEGO DUI "EVALUATION FORM" http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html

http://www.sandiegodui.com

http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

http://www.1800thelawdui.com

http://wwww.sandiegodui.com/criminal

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com

http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com

http://www.sandiegodui.com

San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUILawyer.com

San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .

San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 23 years of experience. Known as a "DMV Guru," Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his law practice to aggressively defending those accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. He has successfully saved the driving privileges of many clients in the past year alone. Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller Background and Contact Information http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/about.html

San Diego DUI and DMV Penalties http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/penalty.html

Out of State License/Resident & Driving Record http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/out_of_state.html

Military Base DUI - San Diego County Federal Court - http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/base.html

http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - Excellent San Diego DUI information source for San Diego county drunk driving arrest. Rights, Laws, Defenses, Penalties, DMV, Court, Military, DUI Boating, Helpful Tips and other comprehensive information. Vigorous DUI lawyer who can save your license and keep you out of jail.

Call 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI (1-800-843-5293) for a free San Diego DUI consultation http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/survey.

For help with your San Diego DUI, visit http://www.SanDiegoDUIHelp.com.



www.Google.com

San Diego DUI lawyer news

Petaluma California DUI police officers nabbed 28 people at two California DUI and driver's license checkpoints Friday evening, with 19 of the drivers arrested for not having a driver's license.

Six people were arrested for driving on a suspended license. Only three of the 28 arrests were for California DUI.

The California DUI checkpoints were conducted from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m at Lakeville Highway, east of Casa Grande Road, and from 10 p.m. Friday to 2 a.m. Saturday at East Washington Street and Lakeville Street.

California DUI police said 1,359 vehicles passed through the Lakeville Highway California DUI checkpoint, with 671 screened by California DUI officers. Of these, 24 were evaluated for both alcohol and driver's license violations.

At the East Washington Street California DUI checkpoint, 402 vehicles passed through the checkpoint and all were screened by California DUI police officers.

sandiegoduihelp.com/survey

Chicago Bears star running back Cedric Benson was released by the Bears after having been arrested early Saturday and charged with drunk driving in downtown Austin, Texas, DUI / DWI attorneys said.

It was Benson's second DUI or alcohol-related charge in a month, DUI / DWI attorneys report.

Both The Austin American-Statesman and the Chicago Tribune newspapers allege Benson failed a DUI / DWI field sobriety test in downtown Austin and was charged with driving while intoxicated. But neither paper had a representative present to witness the FST's.

"There was alcohol involved, that's all we know," Bears General Manager Jerry Angelo told the Tribune. "We are certainly going to take this seriously. Disappointment is (a) too often-used word when talking about Cedric."

Austin police spokeswoman Veneza Aguinaga said the Bears' top pick in the 2005 NFL draft was taken to the Travis County Jail and later was released on bond.

In May, the former University of Texas standout was charged with boating while intoxicated and resisting arrest near Austin, according to DUI / DWI lawyers.

Both DUI charges are class B misdemeanors.


No one is immune:

For the second time in his career as an Austin police officer, Lt. Robert Hernandez has been arrested for drunk driving.

Hernandez was pulled over by a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper in Hays County Wednesday.

Hernandez failed the field sobriety test and was taken to Hays County Jail.

Hernandez found himself in a similar situation in 1998 when he was arrested for drunk driving in Travis County, according to a memo. He was subsequently suspended for 15 days.

Thirteen years before that day in 1998, Hernandez served a three-day suspension after crashing his patrol car into a motorcycle on South Lamar.

According to the 1985 memo, Hernandez was operating his patrol car, without lights or sirens, at a speed "too great for existing conditions." The 1985 memo makes no mention of alcohol.

Hernandez was released from jail. APD said they will continue investigating the incident.

Benson will be picked up as he is a good player.

www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

San Diego DUI attorneys hear there is a Suspected DUI Crash

A legendary pro surfer allegedly lost control of the car he was driving on a coastal North County road early Friday, causing a crash that critically injured him and killed his 24-year-old passenger, San Diego DUI lawyers report.

Milton Willis, 51, was allegedly speeding and may have been drunk when he allegedly ran a stop sign in a Toyota Avalon at Coast Boulevard and 20th Street in Del Mar about 1:40 a.m., according to San Diego DUI attorneys.

The northbound sedan, which was allegedly traveling about 65 mph in a 25-mph zone, bottomed out in a dip in the pavement, allegedly skidded off the western side of the roadway, hit a parked car and smashed into a large palm tree, per San Diego DUI lawyer reports.

The sedan then allegedly spun around and crashed into a vehicle parked in a driveway, San Diego DUI lawyers are told

Willis' passenger, Bradley Dillahunty of Laguna Niguel, died at the scene, according to San Diego DUI lawyer sources.

Emergency crews found Willis, a Solana Beach resident, partially ejected out of the Avalon's rear window, San Diego DUI defense attorneys understand. Medics took him to Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla, where he was admitted in critical condition.

According to San Diego DUI police, unknown preliminary evidence allegedly suggests that alcohol was a "major factor" in the cause of the accident, San Diego DUI police sources tell San Diego DUI defense lawyers.

Mr. Willis, who runs a North County surf school with his identical-twin brother, Michael, is renowned for plying some of the world's largest waves and is credited as a developer of "tow-in surfing," in which a surfer is pulled onto a very large breaker by a cord attached to a personal watercraft or helicopter.

The legendary and likable Willis brothers also established the first surfing class in a U.S. public high school in 1972 and recently co-authored a book of philosophical essays inspired by their surfing careers.

San Diego DUI Help .com SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

San Diego DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI Defense attorney news

The Gridley-Biggs Police Department reports a huge increase in the number of California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI / driving under the influence cases from this time last year.

Assistant Chief Brian Cook said from January 01, 2007 to June 01, 2007 officers arrested 38 suspected DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI drunk drivers. He said from the same time period this year, there were 57 DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI arrests. “This is a 50% increase from last year” said DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI Defense lawyers.

Assistant Chief Cook reported that there was a DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI / driving under the influence checkpoint in Gridley on May 30, on Highway 99 at Ford Avenue. He reported this was a multi-agency effort during the Memorial Day holiday weekend. From 6 p.m. until midnight, there were six DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI arrests, 4 from the checkpoint, and 2 from saturated patrol, DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI Defense attorneys report.

The department is averaging 3 to 4 DUI's a weekend. Cook praised Officers Todd Farr and Scott Smallwood for their extra effort in arresting a majority of the DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI offenders.


sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/blog

San Diego criminal defense attorney news

California' State Attorney General’s Office announced it is now in charge of the criminal investigation of a mother shot by an off-duty San Diego police officer in March.

Assistant Attorney General Gary Schons said a decision whether to charge Rachel Silva, 27, of any criminal wrongdoing would come soon. However, he said he couldn’t comment on what charges were being reviewed.

Rachel Silva and her 8-year-old son, Johnny, were shot March 15 after she and Officer Franklin “Frank” White, 28, were involved in a traffic dispute that prompted the off-duty officer to fire five shots into Silva’s car at an Oceanside Lowe’s home-improvement parking lot, according to court documents.

Johnny Silva was shot once in the leg, while his mother had a bone in her upper right arm shattered by one of the two shots that hit her, court records state. In addition, Rachel Silva, who had been driving on a suspended license from a prior DUI conviction, had .15 blood alcohol level and marijuana in her system at the time of incident.

White, who has been with the San Diego Police Department since 2005, returned April 7 to an administrative position with the department, police said.

Last month, it was decided that the state Attorney General’s Office would take over Silva’s investigation, while the San Diego District Attorney’s Office would handle White’s criminal investigation after a meeting between the two agencies and the Oceanside Police Department, Schons said.

Due to the unusual circumstances of this case, the aforementioned agencies believed it would serve the “interest of justice and fairness” for everyone involved if the cases were separated, Schons said.

Silva’s attorney, Michael Pancer, said while splitting a case is uncommon, he believed it was done in this instance so that “independent minds” could evaluate each case without being influenced by one another.

Both Schons and Paul Levikow, communications director for the District Attorney’s Office, said the decision of who investigates who was thought out; however, neither one could comment further.

Meanwhile, Luis Silva, the father of Johnny Silva, filed a civil lawsuit May 21 in Federal Court against the San Diego Police Department, police Chief William Landsdowne and White on behalf of his son, according to court documents.

In part, the suit alleges that the incident could have been avoided if not for a lack of administrative policies relating to the training, supervision and monitoring by the San Diego Police Department. In addition to monetary damages, the suit also seeks policy changes for law enforcement personnel of the San Diego Police Department.

San Diego DUI lawyer news

Steve Foley, a linebacker whose NFL career ended after he was shot by an off-duty police officer, faces a felony charge of attack by a dog after his pit bulls bit a woman and killed her puppy.

Foley, 32, surrendered at the Fort Bend County Jail on Wednesday and was released later in the day on a $10,000 bond, said public information officer Terriann Carlson.

A grand jury indicted Foley, accusing him of failing to secure the dogs. The two adult pit bulls attacked neighbor Twana Schulz on March 26, causing serious bodily injury when they bit her on the arms and face, according to court documents.

Foley was not home at the time of the incident, said his attorney, Paul Nugent.

Schulz, 36, was walking to the corner to pick her daughter up from the school bus when she was attacked. When a neighbor yelled that the pit bulls were loose, Schulz headed back toward her house.

The pit bulls also attacked and killed a puppy that was with Schulz at the time.

Foley's dogs were seized by animal control officers and later put to sleep.

The charge against Foley is a third-degree felony, Nugent said. Foley could face two to 10 years in prison if convicted.

"The fact that a dog bit someone does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed," Nugent said.

Nugent said Foley kept two adult pit bulls and some puppies as pets. Nugent said the pit bulls were "show dogs and pets, not fighting dogs" and had no previous history of attacks.

"It's a tragic accident," Nugent said. "Mr. Foley feels very sorry that it happened. He had no prior problems with the dogs. It shocked him that these dogs, for some reason, attacked."

Foley, an Arkansas native, played for the Cincinnati Bengals from 1998 to 2002, the Houston Texans in 2003 and the San Diego Chargers from 2004 to 2006.

Foley has lived in Richmond, a Houston suburb, since 2003. He lives there now with his 11-year-old daughter, Nugent said.

Since 1999, Foley has been arrested at least six times, including cases that police say involved alcohol and confrontations with officers. In 2000, Foley told reporters in Cincinnati that he was in the NFL's alcohol rehab program after getting a DUI the previous year.

In April 2006, Foley was booked on suspicion of resisting arrest after a scuffle with police officers in San Diego. Charges never were brought in that case.

Six months later, just before the 2006 season, Foley was shot three times in the left leg by an off-duty police officer in San Diego. Sheriff's officials said the officer followed Foley's car on suspicion that the driver was drunk.

The shooting occurred after Foley allegedly got out of the car and began walking toward the officer, who said he was armed. The officer fired after Foley reached into his waistband, authorities said.

Foley did not play during the 2006 season and forfeit his $775,000 salary.

Tests revealed that Foley's blood-alcohol level was 0.233, nearly three times California's legal limit, when he was shot. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of drunken driving and was sentenced to five years probation.

The Chargers released him in March 2007 with two years still left on his contract.

Nugent would not speculate on how Foley's past problems may affect a possible sentence for the charge involving the dogs.

A convicted drunk driver hid behind his lawyer during sentencing, but his victim's nine-year-old daughter showed great strength as she testified about the loss of her mother and unborn brother during a Sacramento court hearing Wednesday.

In sentencing, Brandon Bowman, 26, was driving drunk when he mowed down 33-year-old Annette Brodovsky as she was walking to a passover dinner on Wemberly Drive in April 2007. That crash in the Arden Arcade area of Sacramento also permanently crippled Brodovsky's friend, 46-year-old Jessica Plaut-Cappon, who was taking her child out of the car when Bowman lost control and drove onto the sidewalk.

Using a cane to walk because of her injuries, she said, "It's nothing short but a miracle that I can stand here before you on my own two legs. Every step I take is like walking on broken glass."

The defendant seemed concerned about concealing his face, shifting to hide behind his California DUI defense lawyer, Kenneth Rosenfeld.

The courtroom was packed with the victims' family and friends, some dressed in the traditional clothing of Orthodox Jews. Many sobbed during the victim impact statements, especially during the remarks from nine-year-old Jasmine, Annette Brodovsky's eldest daughter.

For the four felony counts, including manslaughter, drunk driving and hit and run, White sentenced Bowman to 12 years, eight months in prison.

Bowman, a drifter, ran away from the crash, but was later found hiding in a nearby drainage ditch. His blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit at .20.


SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/blog

The California Highway Patrol's (CHP) "Statewide Driving under the Influence (DUI) Reduction Effort" grant has concluded. A new grant-funded campaign is about to begin. Under this $5 million project, CHP personnel were deployed on an overtime basis with the mission of removing impaired drivers from California's roadways. The grants were awarded by the state Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

During the project's enforcement period 233 DUI/Driver License Checkpoints and 66 DUI Task Force Operations were conducted, and nearly 40,545 overtime hours were expended providing proactive DUI Roving Patrol. As a result of these enforcement efforts, 2,971 DUI arrests were made by CHP officers.

The goal of the "Statewide Driving under the Influence (DUI) Reduction Effort" project was to reduce the number of people killed and injured in alcohol-involved collisions. Through the enforcement efforts this grant provided, the CHP was able to eliminate these DUI drivers from our roadways, keeping our highways safer.

The CHP is urging motorists to help reduce the incidence of DUI fatalities and injuries by not drinking and driving.

The CHP has received another grant for a similar anti-DUI campaign during the 2008-09 fiscal year.

San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 24 years of experience.
SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net

Referred to as the "DMV Guru," San Diego DUI - DMV Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego DUI or drunk driving in San Diego. www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller has successfully saved the driving privileges of many clients in the past year alone. http://www.sandiegodui.com/

Fill out the critical, free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and so San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller can fully protect your driving privileges in California.
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html

Former Chicago Bears quarterback Bob Avellini was acquitted Monday of drunken-driving charges stemming from a 2005 traffic stop in Downers Grove.

In finding Avellini not guilty, DuPage County Judge Jane Mitton said prosecutors had not proved that Avellini was intoxicated when he was stopped. But she fined him $265 for failure to signal a lane change.

Avellini, 54, who was a Bears quarterback from 1975 to 1984, has been charged four times in recent years with drunken driving in DuPage. The Roselle resident was acquitted in two cases, convicted in another, and a fourth is pending.

sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/about

DUI defense lawyer news from SAN ANTONIO

Suspected drunken drivers will have new worries beginning Friday afternoon.

For 86 hours, anybody suspected of drunken driving who refuses a Breathalyzer will be served with a warrant seeking a blood sample. The no-refusal weekend is part of Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed's plan to reduce drunken driving.

Currently, Texas law allows for mandatory blood testing only if a person is killed in a suspected drunken-driving accident, but one local attorney who specializes in defending people suspected of drunken driving is chomping at the bit to challenge the new county program that he calls a civil rights violation.

"We can't wait to sink our teeth in these new cases," Jamie Balagia said. "Bring them on."

Balagia, known as the "DWI Dude" in his commercials, is a former police officer and judge. He said he believes Reed's plan is unconstitutional, but he admitted there's not much people can do to stop their blood from being drawn this Memorial Day weekend.

"If they get a search warrant, they're going to hold you down and strap you on a gurney and suck the blood out of you," he said.

Balagia has long advised clients to refuse blood and breath samples as well as taking roadside sobriety tests because it provides prosecutors the circumstantial evidence needed to earn a conviction.

Of course, Balagia admits, the easiest way to avoid any conviction or testing is to not drink and drive, but added that giving law enforcement less probable cause will make it harder to obtain any warrants.

"Hand them your driver's license and your proof of insurance and don't say a word," he said. "It's unfortunate that we have to take such a hardcore stand, but when you're trying to fight to keep your constitutional rights alive while the cops, the DAs and the courts are trying to rip them from you, you've got to take extreme measures."

Balagia said you should never resist or fight with officers, but refuse to take the tests and fight the evidence in court if your blood is drawn. He expects a number of legal challenges to be filed for lack of evidence.

SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/blog

MADD has lost all credibility...


Not that they haven't already, Mothers Against Drunk Driver, or now Mothers Against Destructive Decisions is what they want to be called now, is using lies and fear mongering tactics with cooperation of local police in San Diego by going into classrooms and telling the class one of their classmates have died due to a drunk driving accident. They then give a eulogy, place a rose on the child's desk, and walk out to leave them thinking that their classmate or friend is dead. Some are crying and left emotionally disturbed. Later in the day they were gathered in the auditorium where they find out their classmate or friend is not dead.

No matter how good the intentions, this fear mongering lie just destroys any credibility MADD, the schools, the police, and the government had. How sad...

OCEANSIDE – It was an elaborate hoax, but 36 students at El Camino High pulled it off with potentially life-saving consequences.

The result was a soberingly realistic dramatization about the dangers of drinking and driving, delivered with surprising professionalism.

Many juniors and seniors were driven to tears – a few to near hysterics – May 26 when a uniformed police officer arrived in several classrooms to notify them that a fellow student had been killed in a drunken-driving accident.

The officer read a brief eulogy, placed a rose on the deceased student's seat, then left the class members to process their thoughts and emotions for the next hour.

The program, titled “Every 15 Minutes,” was designed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Its title refers to the frequency in which a person somewhere in the country dies in an alcohol-related traffic accident.

About 10 a.m., students were called to the athletic stadium, where they learned that their classmates had not died. There, a group of seniors, police officers and firefighters staged a startlingly realistic alcohol-induced fatal car crash. The students who had purportedly died portrayed ghostly apparitions encircling the scene.

Though the deception left some teens temporarily confused and angry, if it makes even one student think twice before getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, it is worth the price, said California Highway Patrol Officer Eric Newbury, who orchestrates the program at local high schools.

“When someone says to me, 'Oh, my God, you're traumatizing my children,' I'm telling them, 'No, what I'm doing is waking them up,' ” said Newbury, whose father was killed by a drunken driver.

“If you don't do your job as a parent ... the only thing I can do is either arrest them and take them to jail or scrape them off the ground and tell you, 'I'm so sorry.' ”

Standard speeches don't usually get the desired reaction, Newbury said.

“If I sit there and lecture somebody in a nice way, it's going to go in one ear and out the other,” he said. “In today's world, where they have all sorts of gore and fantastic things that kids can access on the computer, if you want to compete with that, you have to jar them emotionally.

“I want them to be an emotional wreck. I don't want them to have to live through this for real.”

A few teachers chose not to take part in the production. The ones who did monitored the situation closely. Students who appeared overly distraught were taken aside and told the death was not real.

Senior Brittany Bennett, 17, editor of the school newspaper, played one of the alleged deceased and took the role of a reporter at the accident scene.

Bennett said some students gradually began to discover what was happening on their own.

“Some people were comparing notes, text messaging each other, like, 'So-and-so died,' and 'so-and-so died,” she said. “The wheels were starting to turn.”

The 36 students who participated later attended a retreat at the Carlsbad Inn, where they tried on “beer goggles” that mimicked the sensation of having a .25-blood alcohol level.

Counselor Lori Tauber first approached the school and students about bringing the presentation to El Camino. Tauber's two daughters attend the school.

Tauber said she is aware that drinking and driving is occurring among the student population.

“I just know in my heart this was worth it,” she said.

MADD has lost all credibility... the best part was the comments left by people that read it. Most said they would sue MADD if they pulled anything like this on their kids....

SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

The Top 100 Criminal Justice Blogs

Criminal justice is perhaps one of the the most broad reaching fields of study in education today. It incorporates not only the topics that immediately come to mind such as law enforcement, corrections and the courts, but also political history, social issues, psychology and civil liberties among many others. This diversity of issues makes criminal justice dynamic but it also makes it dizzyingly complex for someone trying to educate themselves in justice issues. Consequently, we have compiled this list to help anyone involved in the criminal justice field — including academics, practitioners and students — find information and resources about their niche, as well as any other aspect of criminal justice.

Police and Detective Blogs
Get a feel for what it’s like to police the streets in some of the world’s toughest cities by checking out this list.

The Policeman’s Blog: This British blog mixes personal stories with humorous analysis of the UK police systems and the “mad, mad mad world of the British underclass.”
LAPD Blog: Readers get a first hand look at crime reports, crime stats and LAPD campaigns from this straightforward blog.
Chicago Police Department Weblog: This is the official blog for the Chicago police department, and readers will find press releases, department news, crime updates and more.
Blues and Twos - Police Officer’s Blog: This blog is another police and law blog from a UK perspective.
Police Inspector Blog: This blogger is a member of the Ruralshire Constabulary in England, and begs readers, “don’t call us, we’ll call you.” Browse the blog for media reviews, politics and the daily grind.
The Philosophical Cop Police Blog: This blog is written by an American cop who analyzes politics, social issues, and crime reports.
Mr. Police Man: Learn about the life of a cop in this blog, which discusses what it’s like to be on duty during Cinco de Mayo, look for a police job and more.
Police Brutality Blog: This blog documents police brutality cases and complaints around the country.
The Johnny Law Chronicles: This blogger notes that “good, bad, I’m the guy with the gun.” Recent posts include “Killed in the line” and “Dope on the table.”
Amherst Police Department Blog: Learn about department news and crime reports for the city of Amherst in this official blog.
The Plastic Fuzz: A police community support officer blog which is noted as much for the eloquent writing style as for the interesting issue-oriented PCSO tales it discusses.
BPDNews.com: Learn about all the criminal reports in Boston each day and get updates about top police news stories in the area.
The Chief’s Corner: Lincoln, Nebraska, Chief of Police Tom Casady gives an insider’s look at what’s happening in the department, including “things you’re unlikely to hear about in the local media.”
Law Schools
These authoritative sites analyze major cases, reveal insight into what it’s like to go to law school and keep readers updated on what they need to know in the criminal justice industry.

CrimProf Blog: Recent posts on this blog cover stories about youth offenders, the Second Chance Act, racial issues in the criminal justice system, and more.
The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog: Read posts, watch videos and listen to podcasts that comment on issues affecting The University of Chicago Law School and the greater criminal justice community.
Tax Prof Law Blog: Paul L. Caron is the Associate Dean of Faculty at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, and he blogs about scholarships, tax law cases, politics and more.
Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil: This Columbia law student’s blog concluded in 2006, but it’s still a popular read and offers great tips on surviving law school.
What I Learned in Law School: Read about law firm office culture, looking for a job, supplementing your degree with leadership skills and more.
Law School Academic Support Blog: Law school professors can turn to this blog for job postings, teaching ideas, conferences and industry news.
Georgetown Law Faculty Blog: Get an academic understanding of current affairs and criminal justice cases here.
Law Librarian Blog: Find great resources for studying and researching criminal law cases here.
Dorf on Law: Columbia Law School professor Michael Dorf and his “lawyer/professor friends” blog about the Supreme Court and top cases around the country.
Advice, News and Resources
Turn to these blogs to learn about new policies and campaigns to improve the justice system. This list also includes sites that serve as one-stop resources for criminal justice professionals and students who need news updates and more.

The Truth About False Confessions: Learn all about false confessions in this blog, from Guantanamo prisoners to the wrongfully convicted.
PULSE Criminal Justice: This network has news and updates from criminal justice systems around the country.
Criminal Justice Online: Turn to this blog for online resources about criminal justice. It’s designed for lawyers, law students and academics, so there’s a variety of information included.
The Innocence Project: The blog for The Innocence Project urges citiznes to “know the cases; understand the causes; fix the system.” Posts are all about important rulings and legislation that reveal how DNA testing can protect the wrongfully accused.
The Criminal Justice Journalists’ News Center: Journalists and anyone else wanting to know more about criminal justice policies and news can turn to this resource.
Criminal Profiling: Get coverage of top criminal justice news stories from around the country.
Criminal Justice Degrees Guide Articles: A concise but growing collection of resources and articles relating both to criminal justice education and to the field generally.
Corrections and Sentencing
This collection features blogs about the death penalty, prison systems, sentencing law and policy, and other criminal justice news.

Capital Defense Weekly: Read detailed commentary about sentencing, the death penalty and criminal justice news at Capital Defense Weekly.
Sentencing Law and Policy: Recent posts from this blog discuss the death penalty, child pornography cases, and coverage of top cases.
The Lonely Abolitionist: This anti-death penalty blog includes posts about cases around the country.
StandDown Texas Project: This is the blog for the StandDown Texas Project, which advocates a review of the Texas criminal justice system and the death penalty.
The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog: Find information about immigration, criminal sentencing, state prison plans, civil liberties and other topics in this blog.
Second Circuit Sentencing Blog: Look up cases and review sentencing decisions from cases in the Second Circuit here.
Juvienation: This blog is written by a journalist in Brooklyn who writes about the issues and reforms surrounding the juvenile justice system.
Texas Prison Bid’ness: Recent posts from this blog discuss prisoner transfers, funding, private prisons and other topics relating to the prison system in Texas.
PrisonBlogs.net: This hosting service supports blogs written by prisoners, and the most recent entries are posted on the home page.
Death Penalty: Amnesty International’s Death Penalty blog covers executions, legislation and cases in states around the country.
Attorney Blogs
These blogs are written by prosecutors, public defenders and attorneys in private practice, and discuss everything from national security to celebrity cases to picking a jury.

A Public Defender: Read about sex offender cases, the notion of accidents in a court room, the death penalty and more.
Law of Criminal Defense: Recent posts include “California Bar investigating Brady violation” and “Hourly billing starting to disappear,” making this blog a good read for criminal defense lawyers wanting all types of news.
Underdog: Criminal and drunk driving defense lawyer Jon Katz writes about the first amendment, Supreme Court cases and more.
Diary of a Criminal Solicitor: This Essex solicitor blog about the criminal justice system in the UK, dropped cases, and top news stories.
Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer: This blog is all about the “art and science of criminal defense trial lawyering” and features well-written, regular posts about local and national cases.
Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer: Categories in this blog include jury trials, the war on drug, the Texas penal code and more. Casual posts are well-written and dispense good information in an approachable way.
Los Angeles Criminal Law Blog: The lawyers at Kestenbaum, Eisner and Gorin in LA maintain this blog, which discusses California criminal laws, jury trials, celebrity cases, sex crimes and a lot more.
Boston Criminal Lawyer Blog: This blog comes from the criminal defense firm Altman and Altman. Read about drug offenses, federal crimes, violent crimes, cyber crimes and more.
California Criminal Lawyer Blog: This blog is full or resources and commentaries that could be useful for law students and lawyers, especially in the state of California. Categories range from DUI defense and blood tests to penalties to women’s defenses to juvenile topics.
SCOTUS Blog: This is the blog for the Supreme Court of the United States, and readers will find information on rulings, schedules for the Justices, petitions, politics and more.
Crime and Consequences: Many of the posts in this blog cover Supreme Court rulings and cases.
FourthAmendment.com: This blog tracks Supreme Court rulings and cases dealing with the fourth amendment.
Campaign for the Supreme Court: This blog, from the Washington Post, features “continuing coverage of the Supreme Court” Justices and decisions.
Judges and Court
Get a better understanding of the court system and how judges make their decisions by following these blogs regularly.

The Anniston Star: Learn all about criminal justice news and the court system in Alabama by reading this blog that’s full of regular updates and photos.
Criminal Appeal: Criminal Appeal focuses on the Ninth Circuit and the California state courts.
How Appealing: How Appealing covers appellate litigation cases, theories and trends.
Long Island (Criminal) Trial Law: Learn about court proceedings, trial law, jury psychology and more in the Long Island courts by reading this blog.
Grits for Breakfast: The unofficial blog for the Texas criminal justice system documents local and state cases, politics and how media and the justice system collide.
Judging Crimes: This well-written, authoritative blog is written by a judge who hears violent and criminal cases and wants the American public to understand the “reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it.”
INCourts: This Indiana lawyer often blogs about Supreme Court rulings and gives reviews of cases, state news and more.
X-Judge: This former judge served on the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Posts cover topics ranging from pre-emption to prosecutor press conferences to politics.
Deliberations: Discover the issues, culture, processes and psychology of jury trials and juries here.
Gavel Grab: Posts from this blog discuss “impartiality, accountability and the war over the courts” and are written by Justice at Stake, a nonprofit group that advocates fair courts.
Criminal Psychology and Social Psychology
Effective lawyers, prison guards, police officers and judges need to understand the basic principles of criminal psychology and social psychology to evaluate witnesses, track down criminals, and maintain a general sense of order.

Prevention Not Punishment: This blog posts about death penalty news and rulings and examines how mental illness and the death penalty often go hand in hand.
Drug Law Blog: From antidepressants to marijuana to the FDA, the Drug Law Blog explores drug-related cases and legislation in California and the U.S.
Forensic Psychology Blog: Learn the basics of forensic psychology, including criminal profiling, here.
Psychology and Crime News: This forensic psychology blog collects scholarly research and posts about industry news.
Neuroethics and Law Blog: Princeton University and University of San Diego School of Law professor Adam Kolber explores how psychology and neurology affect legal and ethical issues.
Social Psychology Arena: Use this blog to connect you to research and resources that will help you better understand the field in general or a particular philosophy.
The Situationist: This smart social psychology blog uncovers research projects and findings, group behavior, child psychology, law and more.
Individual Rights and Public Defenders
Learn more about the civil liberties issues affecting individual rights in the U.S. criminal justice system here.

Injustice Anywhere: This public defender has worked in Texas and Washington, and she rants about seeing injustice in criminal justice systems around the country.
Georgia Criminal Law Blog: Georgians who have been accused of crimes can turn to this blog for news and resources to help them understand their cases.
Blonde Justice: The writer behind Blonde Justice uses Elle Woods from Legally Blonde as her online persona and blogs about being a public defender.
Public Defender Dude: This blogger maintains that he is devoted to “fight[ing]the system through the system.”
Sex Crime Defender: Lawyer Stephen C. Smith writes about the nature of sex crime defense, and encourages readers to share their opinions on rape laws, child pornography cases and more.
DUI Blog: This blogger uncovers “bad drunk driving laws, false evidence and a fading constitution” in this blog.
Think Outside the Cage: The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition publishes this blog, which features posts about marijuana, parole systems, drug abuse, police brutality and more.
Evidence Prof Blog: This law professor uncovers legislations and trends in evaluating evidence that could encroach upon individual rights.
ACLU Blog: This is the official blog for the American Civil Liberties Union, and visitors can read about drug laws, government spying, immigration issues, prisoners’ rights, racial justice and more.
Tales of a Public Defender Investigator: This award-winning blog writes about being a public defender in California. Recent posts include “Defending Ourselves” and “Umm…Another Reason We Should Have Formal County Public Defender Offices?”
Federal Criminal Justice and Issues
Use these blogs as references for studying federal cases and policies that affect the entire nation.

Convictions: Slate’s law blog covers Supreme Court cases and cases that affect national issues.
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy Blog: Criminal justice posts cover Guantanamo issues, the death penalty, civil rights, military cases and much more.
TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime: Recent posts cover Barack Obama, Gitmo prisoners and other political stories as they relate to criminal justice.
Federal Crimes Blog: Posts on this blog are written by lawyers at the McNabb Associates firm that handles drug cases and other cases around the country.
Prevention Works: This is the blog from the National Crime Prevention Council. Readers will find posts about assault and violence; alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse; protecting children; and more.
Pushing Back: Though this blog includes local and state cases, the overall theme is the U.S. fight against drugs. Read posts to get information on drug-related legislation, importation, prevention and drug abuse.
Extradition and Foreign Evidence: Learn about the rules and issues surrounding international criminal justice here.
Representing Foreign Nationals: Representing foreign nationals involves a unique process. Read about cultural issues and immigration law here.
International Criminal Justice and Immigration
These blogs discuss immigration law and international criminal justice for the benefit of lawyers and defendants.

Extradition and Foreign Evidence: Learn about the rules and issues surrounding international criminal justice here.
Representing Foreign Nationals: Representing foreign nationals involves a unique process. Read about cultural issues and immigration law here.
Forensic Science and Technology
Browse images and news stories and discover how technology plays a role in each aspect of the criminal justice system.

Defensology: Read about cybercrime and how technology is used in a criminal courtroom here. The blog is no longer active, but it can be used as a valuable resource for studying past cases.
Forensic News Blog: This well-organized blog includes images, news stories, and more about forensic science.
Miscellaneous
From paralegal blogs to sex crimes to legislation summaries and updates, find everything else you need to know about the criminal justice system in this list.

Overlawyered: This critique of the American criminal justice system covers topics in procedure, personal responsibility, family law, class actions, guns, crime and punishment, and more.
Sex Crimes: This blog is “devoted to the criminal laws regulating and punishing sexual violence.” Recent posts include “GPS Devices and Probable Cause” and “Should a 17 yr. old be charged?”
Overcriminalized: Browse posts and legislative update summaries about all kinds of reforms, campaigns and acts, like the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act and the Foreclosure Prevention Act.
Governing Through Crime: This insightful blog pulls from international politics, psychology and domestic issues to discuss prison reform, the criminal justice system and domestic security.
court-o-rama: Learn how juries are selected, evidence is evaluated and more in this blog.
A Paralegal’s Blog: This blog covers news stories affecting paralegals, the work culture of a paralegal and more.
Pacific Crime Blog: This blog mainly focuses on the West coast, but readers will find news and issues relating to criminal justice and criminology around the country.
Becker-Posner Blog: Perhaps two of the greatest thinkers of our time turn their economic and legal analysis to the world around them, often touching on issues affecting criminal justice.
Crime Rant: Blogger M. William Phelps is “deliberating crime from coast to coast” in this blog. Posts analyze crime stories from all over the country and dissect the nature of crime and question the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles

On May 31, 2008, the Escondido Police Department conducted a San Diego California Drunk Driving / DUI Sobriety / Drivers License Checkpoint in the 700 block of West Grand Avenue from 6:15 PM until 12:15 AM. The emphasis of this San Diego California Drunk Driving checkpoint was to detect intoxicated and unlicensed drivers as well as to provide a highly visible operation to deter San Diego California Drunk Driving - driving under the influence.

The following activity resulted from this San Diego California Drunk Driving checkpoint:

• 2,886 vehicles entered the San Diego California Drunk Driving checkpoint eastbound on Grand Avenue
• 1,121 vehicles were screened in primary
• 118 vehicles sent to secondary (drivers who could not produce a drivers license or who were suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs)
• 3 drivers were arrested for San Diego California Drunk Driving /driving under the influence of alcohol
• 2 drivers were arrested for felony probation violation when they attempted to flee the checkpoint
• 2 drivers were cited for having open bottles of alcohol in their car
• 1 driver was cited for possession of marijuana
• 56 vehicles were impounded at this San Diego California Drunk Driving checkpoint
• 54 drivers did not have a driver license, 8 drivers had a suspended driver licenses and 20 drivers did not have motor vehicle insurance
• 73 traffic citations were issued at this checkpoint
• 10 field sobriety tests were given to drivers who had been drinking

This San Diego California Drunk Driving checkpoint operated in conjunction with Mothers against Drunk Drivers, and the North County Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Council.

Funding for this San Diego California Drunk Driving program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

San Diego California Drunk Driving Charges Reported are Merely Accusations and the Defendants are Presumed Innocent Unless and Until Proven Guilty.

San Diego DUI attorney announcement

Airmen at Sheppard Air Force Base got a taste of drunk driving over the weekend.

The Texas Department of Public Safety set up three cone courses that airmen drove through on golf carts while wearing goggles. The goggles are specially designed to influence vision and coordination in the way that alcohol does. The goggles used during the event were made to give the feeling of a .16 blood alcohol content rating.

The Texas Department of Transportation and Sheppard AFB teamed up to teach airmen about the hazards of drinking and driving.

“I’m feeling a little nauseous,” said Brig. Gen. Richard Devareaux, commander of the 82nd Training Wing after driving through the course. “I knew it would be difficult, but it was harder than I thought.”

The response from many of the airmen who drove the course was similar to Devareaux’s.

“You’re driving between the cones but they’re moving on you,” said Airman 1st Class Ryan Lee. He said he and his friend came to the event thinking they would be able to make it through the cones.

“You think you can out think it,” Devereaux said. He said that thought process is similar when actually drinking and driving.

“This lets them see the reality of drinking and driving,” said Patsy Walls, traffic safety coordinator with TxDOT. “Impaired driving is the No. 1 cause of fatal crashes in Texas.”

Walls said any sober driver could complete the course without knocking over cones, but when the goggles impair vision, reflexes and the brain, it is more difficult.

“That was weird. That was beyond bad,” said Airman DeSaun Haney. “They make everything lean, and it’s magnified.”

Haney knocked over a few cones on his way through the course. “You think ‘OK I’m not going to hit that,’ then bump bump,” he said.

“Besides training them about their job, we want to train them about making the right choices,” Devereaux said. “Everyone on base knows when there’s a DUI.”

There were 13 DUIs in the past 12 months, he said. He hoped the event would help raise further awareness and prevent future DUIs.

“They are having fun and talking about it,” he said. “Our hope is it will hopefully sink in and change behavior.”

This is the first time this program has been brought to Sheppard. Walls said the goal was to help teach airmen that drinking and driving is not safe.

sandiegoduilawyer.com/blog

San Diego DUI lawyers love this California drunk driving attorney story

SanDiegoDUIhelp.com

So You are Taking a Simple First Offense DUI Case?

By California DUI attorney Joshua M. Dale, Esq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxC4vl1GRpw

Taking and handling a client’s drunk driving arrest or DUI case in California can be challenging especially if you want to win. The system enjoys quite an assembly line of conviction, but defense counsel, public and private, can step up and go to work – 85% of the arrested have not injured or killed anyone – and that’s not just because they were arrested. DUI is a political crime with lots of cases every year.

When California lowered her limit to 0.08% blood alcohol in 1990 for the crime, she knew she would catch many more innocent people in the nets than under the 0.10% blood alcohol system: just like she did when the limit was lowered from 0.15% in the late 1960’s. 0.08% means 8/100’s of one percent of a person’s blood is ethyl alcohol – something that cannot be seen with the naked eye.

In the late 1990’s, 0.08% became the nation’s limit and even more innocent people have been dragged into the system. They are naturally fighting their cases and they are looking for help fighting their cases.

Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code §6068 kicks in when you take a client with a DUI case, stating that “[i]t is the duty of an attorney to … counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense.” You are righteous defending these cases and making the Government prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, or, by a preponderance, depending on what is your venue.

Approximately 1/3 of the 185,000 +/- California DUI arrests every year have legitimate & authentic scientific and legal issues/defenses. It is incumbent upon you to prevent your client’s conviction of any public offense and save their driver’s license, if you can, without your personal bias against alcohol, drugs, or drunk drivers getting in the way.

Each DUI arrest made in California triggers two cases – the criminal court case, and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) administrative per se (APS) case provided the arrestee takes a chemical test of 0.08% alcohol level or higher, or refuses the chemical test. Because of time limits involved (Cal. Veh. Code §§13558, 14100, 14103), an attorney taking on a new DUI matter must contact the DMV within the first 10 days after arrest and request an APS hearing. If a client has called you to interview, you must ascertain what date the arrest occurred so you can meet the deadline, even if you cannot meet the client first. If the 10th day falls on a weekend or designated holiday, the deadline is extended to the next DMV business day.

DUI affects poor people more than the rich and the public defender (PD) system helps the poor in court – these arrestees are not provided a free lawyer at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and so you’ll find them looking for an attorney only for the DMV hearing. The accused are generally male, 18 – 34 years of age.

You should see this as an opportunity to do some pro bono, or, obtain a small fee in payments helping the public defender do a better job (if you turn over your discovery to them after you’ve won your client’s license, or right to drive back – and the PD gets them a better deal in the court case).

A client who foregoes the DMV hearing automatically loses their right to drive in California and they waive all defenses and rights that existed – if they have a CA driver’s license it is suspended for at least 4 months (or 1 year upon first offense refusal of the chemical test – CVC §§13352, 13353). If the client possesses an out of state license, the right to drive in California is suspended for the time and then, pending filing of an SR22 Insurance Certificate after that, an out-of-state resident can drive here again.

Commercially licensed drivers lose for at least a year on their first offense – if it is their second offense, even if in their personal vehicle as opposed to a Commercial Vehicle (CVC §15210), their Commercial Driver’s License is permanently revoked, for life by CVC §15302. The key to Commercial drivers is, if they lose twice, at the DMV or the court, or both, for two separate DUI’s no matter how many years apart, their Class A license is gone for life – even if the two DUI’s were in their own private cars as opposed to their work vehicles.

A person faces a prior, or “separate”, offense when they have a separate DUI conviction within 10 years of another. The time between offenses is measured from offense date to offense date, not conviction dates. Out of California DUI’s may be counted at the DMV as a separate offense within 10 years. A prior DUI more than 10 years between offenses has been known as a “stale” prior by some judges.

California belongs to the Interstate Compact (CVC §15000 et sec.), and we share information with most all the other 50 states – whenever a problem exists with the driving record of an individual, and a “mandatory” suspension or revocation exists against your client, you must deal with DMV in Sacramento at “Mandatory Actions” (916-657-6525) .

When in a DMV APS hearing and you see a separate DUI offense is being used against your client – object to its use to preserve arguments for post-hearing adjudication even if the hearing officer says it isn’t one of the hearing’s issues listed in CVC §13558.

The California Vehicle Code specifies the issues for the hearing (CVC §13558). Most arrestees default on their right to a hearing missing the 10 limit to request a hearing. But, if you can win the DMV APS hearing, having the “suspension action set aside”, you have a good court plea bargaining tool.

All DUI first offenders who have taken a chemical test (as opposed to one who refuses testing) can obtain a work and class restricted license after they have been suspended for at least 30 days (CVC §13352.4). Timing is everything though – counsel who forgets to advise their client of the right to a restricted license may inadvertently extend a client’s suspension and restriction to several months instead of a suspension for only 30 days, followed by a 5 month restriction (the minimum – a total 6 month action against the license).

A commercially licensed driver who is convicted of DUI at the DMV, or in court, or both, may still obtain a restricted first offender license, if, and only if, the driver gives up his/her Class A license in exchange for a Class C license – if the Class A license is required for employment in a Class A status, their employment is likely terminated if counsel loses the case at either court or DMV.

Persons under 21 years also face extended license suspensions or revocations for alcohol and drug violations.

Remember, in the DMV hearing, different rules of evidence and procedure apply as this is an “administrative” hearing where few, if any, criminal court rules apply – theories like the corpus delecti rule simply don’t apply (Gov. Code §§11500 et. seq. – where a Vehicle Code section exists, it usually trumps the Gov. Code section – for instance the 10 day limit above is the law rather than the 15 day limit in Gov. Code §11506).

The DMV APS hearing is adjudicated by a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Hearsay is allowed except “over timely objection shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions” (Gov. Code §11513(d)). A citizen’s statement written in a police report is objectionable just as the chemical test or the preliminary breath test (PBT / PAS) results usually lack foundation.

Expert witnesses can “testify” by declaration under Gov. Code §11514, and, rebutting the Official Duty Presumption is one of the main goals of the hearing (Evidence Code §664). The hearing is prosecuted and judged by a DMV Hearing Officer who has gone to DMV training school, is most likely not a lawyer, and is not an administrative law judge as required by the Government Code in administrative hearings.

Knowing that your client has been arrested by a trained California cop, and that the DMV hearing officer has limited training, you must get to work on the case right away. For the standard first offense hearing, the DMV will likely only proceed with evidence in their “official file.” That means the DMV will likely not bring the arresting officer in for the hearing live – only the reports and other documentary evidence are used - your client has the right to subpoena any witnesses though – using a DMV subpoena and subpoena duces tecum available on the DMV’s website (www.dmv.ca.gov/ forms/ds/ ds2000p.pdf). So, you can bring in an arresting officer for your client’s case, but beware, usually the officer will only bolster the DMV’s side.

Because of the rules, your client must pay for the police officer’s witness testimony and so when you lawfully serve your subpoena on the law enforcement witness you must also leave a deposit of $150.00 (Gov. Code §68097.2). Sometimes the agency will bill you for an additional sum or you’ll get a refund depending on the time you used the law enforcement witness.

For things like dispatch logs, copies of video or audio tapes, breathalyzer and gas chromatograph records, call about fees before sending in your subpoena to avoid having it rejected. If you have all your papers in order, service for a DMV hearing can be done by first class mail (CVC §14104.5(b)).

Most of the time, it is best to proceed only with the DMV file as evidence against your client – if the DMV is subpoenaing witnesses themselves, there is a deficiency in the DMV’s documentary evidence you should spot right away.

If you plan to bring in other witnesses to testify, tell the DMV hearing officer about it at least 10 days before the hearing or you may not get to put on your witness (Gov. Code §11507.6).

You should almost always consult an alcohol toxicology expert about your case and here’s why – the DMV will not bring an expert for their case since it relies on evidence presumptions to prove the chemical test evidence against your client - you want to shift the presumption that the chemical test result is correct so the DMV “sets aside the license suspension.”

Your alcohol expert witness needs certain things to help you win your client’s case. Although you are using this expert to win the DMV hearing, consult and prepare with them at the same time thinking about how to win the court case too. Begin by getting all of the documents you need to attack the chemical test result.

Chemical tests are usually blood, breath, or urine. For any alcohol test, your expert witness will know what you need, how to ask for it, and where to serve the subpoena or public records request. Your expert will analyze the data you get and tell you if the crime lab or other custodian has provided you with enough discovery – or if they’re hiding something, and if so, what to request.

But, even if you don’t find anything interesting in the documents, you will likely have another defense where the chemical test expert can help you – a scientific defense utilizing the toxicology of alcohol or a discussion about the variability in the testing equipment used in your case. Whatever you do, don’t go to hearing before you have your strategy down.

Continuances of the hearing should be sought under Gov. Code §11524 – “when seeking a continuance, a party shall apply for the continuance within 10 working days following the time the party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the event or occurrence which establishes the good cause for the continuance.” DMV has its own definitions of good cause and their rules are reasonable – court takes precedence over DMV usually.

When your defense is ready, your proper subpoenas served, all your strategies in place, and your expert is ready, have the hearing. But, should you have the hearing in person, or on the phone? Many DUI practitioners in California handle hearings both ways but most agree that when credibility is the only thing you have going for your defense, an in person hearing is the only way to go – you want to look the lying witness in the face and watch body language to have the best chance at impeachment.

DMV hearing officers like to have hearings on the phone – if an interpreter is needed, one will be patched into the call – just request an interpreter ahead of time. If you need the interpreter at an in person hearing, the same applies – simply request an interpreter.

If your client is to testify, make sure you have prepared them thoroughly as the hearing officers are trained to attack credibility and default to the lack of it as their justification for taking a license, or, “upholding the suspension.”

The DMV Hearing Officer begins the recorded hearing with the Department’s official evidence against your client. These reports are the evidence against your client (CVC §14104.7). Hearing officers allow you to object to the exhibits one at a time - some like to have you object all at the end after the marking of all the DMV exhibits.

Once you have made all your objections (or filed a pleading regarding their admissibility) you have your chance to present items of evidence. Hearing Officers almost never object to anything you provide so long as relevant.

Once all your exhibits are marked and dealt with, have your witnesses sworn in to testify. Then present your evidence. The Hearing Officer will conclude the hearing by asking if you have a closing statement – sometimes you might rather close your case by a letter so you can submit a more complete closing argument.

Hearing officers usually decide a case within 30 days – a decision taking longer than 100 days can give you a remedy if your client has not had a right to drive (Gov. Code §11517(b)(3)) .

If your client doesn’t succeed in the hearing don’t fret – there are post hearing remedies that are explained in the notice of decision the DMV will send you after the Hearing officer decides the case.

- Joshua M. Dale has been a solo criminal defense practitioner in the San Francisco Bay Area since 1995 – he is the Executive Director and Treasurer of the California DUI Lawyers Association and a DUI Specialist member; he is found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxC4vl1GRpw – he welcomes your questions at joshd@jmd-ent. com or (415) 750-4350 - www.joshdale. com - and thanks to these California DUI lawyers who proofed this document and recommended many changes to get to the final product:

Mindy McQueen, Robert Hamilton, Holly Zebari, Carol Moses, G. Wright Morton, Sheldon Rosinsky, John Thornton, Jason Gronski, Michael Meehan, Tim Pori


Self-Assessment Test

Indicate whether the following statements are true or false after reading the MCLE article on DUI cases at the DMV administrative per se level.

1. Every DUI arrest (so long as the chemical test result is .08% or more or refusal) in California triggers two legal matters – one in the criminal court and one at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

2. A DMV APS hearing must be requested within 15 days of the service of notice of that right.

3. A trucker (Commercial Class A licensed driver) who gets a DUI in California in his 18-wheel truck followed by another DUI in his private automobile 15 years later, if convicted of both at the DMV, but settled for wet reckless (CVC §23103 per 23103.5) at court, will lose the Class A license for life.

4. A person who blows a 0.13% chemical test result will suffer a one year suspension of their right to drive in California on their first offense from the DMV.

5. A non-commercial driver (Class C license) who received a DUI in June, 1998, and then who receives a DUI in July, 2008 with a 0.19%breath alcohol level will suffer a 4 month suspension of their right to drive in California from the DMV.

6. The Interstate Compact insures that all states adhere to the 0.08% blood alcohol limit.

7. In a DMV APS hearing, if you do not object to evidence in the correct way, you will likely waive the issue for post-hearing review.

8. The determination of whether a driver should suffer a multiple DUI offense within 10 years is determined by looking at the conviction dates and seeing if they are within 10 years of one another.

9. If you win the DMV APS hearing, you possibly have a good plea bargaining tool for court purposes, depending on the issue, of course.

10. The Corpus Delecti rule applies to DMV APS hearings.

11. In order to win a DMV APS hearing, the DMV must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, giving the arrested driver a good chance of winning.

12. It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed.

13. In the DMV APS hearing, subpoenaing the arresting officer and getting their testimony requires a deposit of $150.00.

14. Because of the issues in the DMV APS hearing, there is no need to get an alcohol expert or toxicologist to assist in your client’s case.

15. DMV APS hearing subpoena duces tecum can be served by the United States Postal Service.

16. A phone DMV APS hearing can benefit the arrested driver by bringing together the parties and their witnesses who may be long distances apart.

17. Interpreters are paid for by the arrested driver or are not allowed in the DMV APS hearing.

18. If a DMV APS hearing is not decided in 100 days after the hearing, the driver is entitled a remedy for the delay.

19. There is no right to post hearing review or adjudication.

20. The DMV APS hearing is prosecuted and judged by one person called a DMV hearing officer – this person rules on the hearing’s evidentiary objections, determines witness credibility, decides the hearing outcome, most usually is not a licensed California lawyer (nor have they been to law school), and never are you entitled to an administrative law judge (ALJ).


www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net