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)