Independently rated as "Superb", Rick Mueller is one of the top San Diego DUI Lawyers. He has been practicing drunk driving defense law since 1983. He received his Juris Doctor degree from Chicago Kent College of Law and is also a licensed attorney in Illinois.

Rick is the only San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney who was the featured Speaker at seven DUI / DMV seminars in San Diego County in recent years. Rick was selected by Attorney of the Year Felipe "Mad Dog" Plascencia to lecture at the 2009 Mexican American Bar Association's Annual DUI Seminar "Attacking & Defending DUI Cases" held at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. At the request of California DUI Lawyers Association President Vincent Tucci, Rick lectured at the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Rules of the Road 2008 DUI Seminar.

San Diego DUI attorneys are often asked how to get a drunk driving off your record.

What is a DUI Expungement?

A DUI expungement is a legal process that petitions the Court to review a DUI-related conviction to determine:

•If the term of probation was successfully completed & concluded;
•That all fines, restitution and reimbursement ordered by the court have been paid and everything ordered by the court was completed in a timely manner;
•That the petitioner is not now on probation for another offense;
•That the petitioner has no new pending cases;

The Court then may allow the petitioner to withdraw his or plea or finding of guilt or no contest, and thereafter orders the case dismissed.

How does this help me?

Expungement law (Penal Code Section 1203.4) provides in part:

"[Petitioner shall]...be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as provided..."

What about applying for jobs?

•If Private Employers ask if you have every been convicted of a crime, you generally can respond with "NO".
•(Each question is different so please first contact an attorney before answering any specific question, in every case and for every form.)
•On questions by Government Employers or Government Licensing Applications if you are asked if you have ever been convicted of a crime, you must disclose the expunged case.
What doesn't a DUI Expungement do?

Your dismissed DUI conviction can still be used to increase your punishment in future DUI cases. The offense is "priorable".

•It can still be used to enhance penalties & increase punishment should you get another DUI.
•It can be used to try to put you in jail or increase the length of a DMV suspension.
Does this erase all records and destroy the Court file?

No. An expungement

•the disposition of the case to reflect a dismissal under 1203.4 of the Penal Code. This means the Court file, the California Department of Justice, and the FBI update their files to show the case has been ordered dismissed by the Court.

Will I need to go to Court?

No. I handle all Court work for you.

How Long Does A DUI Expungement Take?

Misdemeanors: Most expungements for misdemeanors take between 4 to 6 weeks to complete from the time the application is filed. This does not include the time needed to research all records and process the application. The more prepared you are as to the information needed (Case number, date of birth, conviction date, probation length, Vehicle Code charge number, and San Diego county court location) the quicker the application can be processed. If it is necessary to search the court records for information, it may take additional time.

Why Expunge my record? Why spend the money?

There are a number of reasons to do so such as employment or licensing. However, at least half our clients want to expunge their record as final "closure" on an old mistake- just for peace of mind.

DISCLAIMER: Please be aware this page is NOT a comprehensive analysis of all expungement law, types of answers to types of questions asked, or of all types of remedies that may be available to you. This is NOT intended to be legal advice, and a consultation with an Attorney is always first recommended and before answering any question.

What to reasonably & promptly do within 10 days of being arrested, according to San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers at San Diego County DUI Law Center.

10. If you need to save your driver's license or privileges, your attorney has only ten (10) calendar days to contact DMV!



Do not schedule yourself. If you contact DMV to schedule a date conflicting with your attorney's calendar, DMV will not reschedule and you may not get the attorney of your choice. There is no rush as long as your attorney contacts DMV by the 10th day from your arrest.



9. The ten (10) day time limit is computed from the Issue date of the SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. If time is running out or you are late, contact an attorney ASAP.



8. This ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is the California DMV paper which you should have received.



7. Even if you did not receive this DMV paper, the California DMV will probably take action against your driving privileges.



6. Even if you have a license from another state, and even if the officer did not take your license, that state may also take action against your driving privileges.



5. This TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE ENDORSEMENT is valid for only thirty (30) days from the issue date.



If a DMV hearing is requested within ten (10) days, your DMV TEMPORARY will be extended & there will be a stay (delay) of any suspension until the outcome of your DMV hearing is determined.



4. Do not confuse this initial 30 day TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE with your court date!

The DMV and criminal proceedings are separate and independent. The outcome of one almost never affects the other. Sometimes the officer or the DMV paper confuses or misleads you to believe that the TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is good "until the court date". If there are approximately thirty (30) days from your arrest date to your court date, this may just be a dangerous coincidence. There usually are months before your DMV hearing takes place.



3. There are three (3) issues at the hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of DMV paper.)



Issues are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you or whether the chemical test evidence is beatable.



2. The DMV has the burden of proof to prevail on all three (3) issues. If DMV meets the burden of proof on two (2) issues, you win!



1. All a DMV attorney has to do is knock out one (1) DMV issue to save your license & you avoid any reissue fee and/or Proof of Insurance SR-22 filing!






Click on below sites for more information or to contact a San Diego DUI Lawyer who can help:

San Diego DUI Lawyer

Video of San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney

Unfortunately facing a DUI or Drunk Driving in San Diego County? Click to assurances with this DUI criminal defense lawyer Survey now will immediately get this critical Survey information to San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney Rick Mueller.

If a San Diego DUI Breath Test, before completing, it is recommended you first view first view California DUI & Drunk Driving Defenses to San Diego County Breath Test. If a San Diego Drunk Driving Blood Test, feel free to view Defenses to San Diego County Blood Test.

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys have learned that California DUI police will receive nearly $200,000 for Newport Beach's DUI enforcement program. Orange County's Newport Beach City Council approved the grant Tuesday night.

This California DUI police department will have $192,000 budgeted for California DUI checkpoints, extra patrols focused on California DUI enforcement, from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010.

The California DUI money comes from the California Office of Traffic Safety. The city pays for overtime costs associated with California Drunk Driving enforcement up front and is reimbursed by the state, according to the City Council staff report.

This California Drunk Driving grant will fund six California DUI checkpoints, 110 California DUI saturation patrols, two California DUI court sting operations, where police hide out near the Harbor Justice Center to catch folks driving to court with suspended licenses.

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys at San Diego County DUI Law Center, including Drunk Driving defense lawyer specialist Rick Mueller, were told about one judge who wants interlock devices. Here's his take:

He was the first California judge to order convicted DUI drivers to install ignition-interlock devices in their vehicles. The device is designed to stop people who have been drinking alcohol from starting their cars by requiring them first to blow into it. If there is alcohol on the driver's breath, the California DUI device will not allow the ignition system to operate.

Ordering convicted California DUI drivers to install these devices seems to this judge to be a matter of common sense and basic safety. But in fact, it was far more complicated. The California courts may soon require judges to follow this California DUI judge's lead on ignition-interlock sentencing.

20 years later, the judge is waiting on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature. Fellow judges did not support this California DUI judge's ignition-interlock sentences. Judges, no less than the rest of us, resist change. Colleagues who were assigned to calendars filled with California DUI charges wanted to dispose of these cases quickly and quietly, obtaining guilty pleas as early in the process as possible. Completing the additional paperwork that went with ignition-interlock devices did not sit well with them.

There was also initial opposition from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In their view, the ignition-interlock devices weren't punitive enough; they preferred more jail time for California DUI / drunk drivers. Incarceration, however, is a temporary remedy. As the recidivism numbers clearly demonstrate, convicted California DUI drivers return to the roads in numbers too great to ignore.

Then there was the issue of fairness, since the devices are expensive. (20 years ago, the installation fee was $150 and the lease fee was $50 per month; prices have gone up a bit.) Convicted California DUI drivers are often low-income.

By ordering them to use the devices, this California DUI judge was effectively raising their fines, so he lowered those to offset the fees. That proved unacceptable to Santa Clara County's district attorney's office, which took the position that California DUI judges could not lawfully reduce drunk driving fines

Now 50 states have laws permitting the imposition of ignition-interlock devices as sentencing alternatives for drunk drivers. The devices have a proven track record as reportedly an effective deterrent. The American Journal of Preventive Medicine notes that five out of six studies found that interlocks reduced the rate of recidivism for DWI charges. Participants in the interlock programs were 15 percent to 69 percent less likely than other offenders to be rearrested for drunk driving.

Still judges often fail to order the installations, even when the law requires it. Anecdotally, you can take your pick of explanations: too much paperwork; too much court time to review the results of the breath printouts; opposition to any other sentencing options other than jail; ignorance of the fact that this is a California DUI sentencing alternative.

Just as convicted California DUI drivers must be made to use the devices, California DUI judges must be made to order them. The well-documented carnage on our highways and the tremendous economic impact wreaked upon us by California DUI drunk drivers are far too great to leave to judicial whim.

This California DUI bill rests on the governor's desk, which passed earlier this month - it would require judges to order the installation of ignition-interlock devices in the vehicles of convicted first-time California DUI drivers and repeat California DUI drivers, as a pilot project in the counties of Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento, and Tulare.

If Schwarzenegger signs the bill, the pilot program would start in July 2010 and become statewide law in 2016. This California DUI legislation is supported by a wide array of law enforcement agencies, including MADD, which has changed its stance on ignition-interlock sentencing.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers wonder what will happen.

San Diego DUI attorneys are being asked about the proposed new drunk driving law for california. Expert DUI attorneys have been looking into this and the effect of this law on the current dui laws in California.

BILL NUMBER: AB 91 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 17, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 16, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 1, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 4, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 21, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 13, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 16, 2009

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Feuer
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Buchanan, De La Torre, Gilmore, Hill,
Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Miller, Nava,
Saldana, Solorio, and Torlakson)
(Coauthors: Senators Benoit, Cox, and DeSaulnier)

JANUARY 6, 2009

An act to amend Sections 13386 and 23576 of, and to add and repeal
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 23700) of Division 11.5 of, the
Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 91, as amended, Feuer. Vehicles: driving under the influence
(DUI): ignition interlock device.
(1) Existing law requires all manufacturers of ignition interlock
devices that meet specified requirements and are certified in a
manner approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles, who
that intend to market the devices in this state,
to first apply to the department on forms provided by the department
and to pay an accompanying fee in an amount not to exceed the amount
necessary to cover the costs incurred by the department in carrying
out those provisions.
This bill would require a manufacturer and a manufacturer's agent,
certified by the department to provide ignition interlock devices,
to provide each year to the department information on the number of
false positives and the time to reset the device. The bill would also
require the department to use this information in evaluating the
continued certification of an ignition interlock device.
(2) Existing law requires a person's privilege to operate a motor
vehicle to be suspended or revoked for a specified period of time if
the person has been convicted of violating specified provisions
prohibiting driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage or drug or the combined influence of an alcoholic
beverage and drug, or with 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in
his or her blood or while addicted to the use of any drug, with or
without bodily injury to another. Existing law also authorizes a
person whose privilege is suspended or revoked in that manner to
receive a restricted driver's license if specified requirements are
met, including, in some instances, the installation of an ignition
interlock device on the person's vehicle.
This bill would require the department to establish a pilot
program from July 1, 2010, to January 1, 2016, in the Counties of
Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare that requires, as a
condition of being issued a restricted driver's license, being
reissued a driver's license, or having the privilege to operate a
motor vehicle reinstated subsequent to a conviction for a violation
of the above offenses, a person to install for a specified period of
time an ignition interlock device on all vehicles he or she owns or
operates, except as provided. The amount of time the ignition
interlock device would be required to be installed would be based
upon the number of convictions, as prescribed. The bill would
prohibit the implementation of the pilot program if the department
fails to obtain, by January 31, 2010, nonstate funds for the
programming costs of the pilot program.
The bill would set up a statutory scheme under which the
department would, with regard to the installation of an ignition
interlock device described above, notify the person of the ignition
interlock device installation requirements established under the
bill, accept notification from the installer of the ignition
interlock device of attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the
ignition interlock device or if the person fails 3 or more times to
comply with the maintenance requirements, monitor the installation
and maintenance of the ignition interlock device, and keep specified
records.
The bill would also require that manufacturers and manufacturer's
agents, certified by the department to provide ignition interlock
devices, adopt a fee schedule for payment of the costs of the
ignition interlock device based on the offender's ability to pay, and
would require the court to adopt a similar fee schedule with regard
to the fees for the county alcohol and drug problem assessment
program.
On or before January 1, 2015, the department would be required to
report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of the pilot
program in reducing the number of first-time driving under the
influence violations and repeat offenses in those counties.
(3) This bill would require that it becomes
become operative only if SB 598 of the 2009-10 Regular
Session becomes operative on or before January 1, 2010.
(4) Because it is a crime to operate a vehicle that is not
equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device by a
person whose driving privilege is so restricted, the bill would
impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the scope of that
crime.
(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 13386 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13386. (a) (1) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall certify or
cause to be certified ignition interlock devices required by Article
5 (commencing with Section 23575) of Chapter 2 of Division 11.5 and
publish a list of approved devices.
(2) (A) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall ensure that
ignition interlock devices that have been certified according to the
requirements of this section continue to meet certification
requirements. The department may periodically require manufacturers
to indicate in writing whether the devices continue to meet
certification requirements.
(B) The department may use denial of certification, suspension or
revocation of certification, or decertification of an ignition
interlock device in another state as an indication that the
certification requirements are not met, if either of the following
apply:
(i) The denial of certification, suspension or revocation of
certification, or decertification in another state constitutes a
violation by the manufacturer of Article 2.55 (commencing with
Section 125.00) of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of the Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations.
(ii) The denial of certification for an ignition interlock device
in another state was due to a failure of an ignition interlock device
to meet the standards adopted by the regulation set forth in clause
(i), specifically Sections 1 and 2 of the model specification for
breath alcohol ignition interlock devices, as published by notice in
the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 67, Tuesday, April 7, 1992, on
pages 11774 to 11787, inclusive.
(C) Failure to continue to meet certification requirements shall
result in suspension or revocation of certification of ignition
interlock devices.
(b) (1) A manufacturer shall not furnish an installer, service
center, technician, or consumer with technology or information that
allows a device to be used in a manner that is contrary to the
purpose for which it is certified.
(2) Upon a violation of paragraph (1), the department shall
suspend or revoke the certification of the ignition interlock device
that is the subject of that violation.
(c) An installer, service center, or technician shall not tamper
with, change, or alter the functionality of the device from its
certified criteria.
(d) The department shall utilize information from an independent
laboratory to certify ignition interlock devices on or off the
premises of the manufacturer or manufacturer's agent, in accordance
with the guidelines. The cost of certification shall be borne by the
manufacturers of ignition interlock devices. If the certification of
a device is suspended or revoked, the manufacturer of the device
shall be responsible for, and shall bear the cost of, the removal of
the device and the replacement of a certified device of the
manufacturer or another manufacturer.
(e) No model of ignition interlock device shall be certified
unless it meets the accuracy requirements and specifications provided
in the guidelines adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
(f) All manufacturers of ignition interlock devices that meet the
requirements of subdivision (e) and are certified in a manner
approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles, who intend to market
the devices in this state, first shall apply to the Department of
Motor Vehicles on forms provided by that department. The application
shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount not to exceed the amount
necessary to cover the costs incurred by the department in carrying
out this section.
(g) A manufacturer and a manufacturer's agent certified by the
department to provide ignition interlock devices shall provide each
year to the department information on the number of false positives
and the time to reset the device. The department shall use this
information in evaluating the continued certification of an ignition
interlock device.
(h) The department shall ensure that standard forms and
procedures are developed for documenting decisions and compliance and
communicating results to relevant agencies. These forms shall
include all of the following:
(1) An "Option to Install," to be sent by the Department of Motor
Vehicles to repeat offenders along with the mandatory order of
suspension or revocation. This shall include the alternatives
available for early license reinstatement with the installation of an
ignition interlock device and shall be accompanied by a toll-free
telephone number for each manufacturer of a certified ignition
interlock device. Information regarding approved installation
locations shall be provided to drivers by manufacturers with ignition
interlock devices that have been certified in accordance with this
section.
(2) A "Verification of Installation" to be returned to the
department by the reinstating offender upon application for
reinstatement. Copies shall be provided for the manufacturer or the
manufacturer's agent.
(3) A "Notice of Noncompliance" and procedures to ensure continued
use of the ignition interlock device during the restriction period
and to ensure compliance with maintenance requirements. The
maintenance period shall be standardized at 60 days to maximize
monitoring checks for equipment tampering.
(i) Every manufacturer and manufacturer's agent certified by the
department to provide ignition interlock devices shall adopt fee
schedules that provide for the payment of the costs of the device by
applicants in amounts commensurate with the applicant's ability to
pay.
SEC. 2. Section 23576 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23576. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 23575 and 23700, if a person
is required to operate a motor vehicle in the course and scope of his
or her employment and if the vehicle is owned by the employer, the
person may operate that vehicle without installation of an approved
ignition interlock device if the employer has been notified by the
person that the person's driving privilege has been restricted
pursuant to Sections 23575 and 23700 and if the person has proof of
that notification in his or her possession, or if the notice, or a
facsimile copy thereof, is with the vehicle.
(b) A motor vehicle owned by a business entity that is all or
partly owned or controlled by a person otherwise subject to Sections
23575 and 23700, is not a motor vehicle owned by the employer subject
to the exemption in subdivision (a).
SEC. 3. Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 23700) is added to
Division 11.5 of the Vehicle Code, to read:
CHAPTER 5. IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES


23700. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Department of Motor Vehicles shall establish a pilot program in the
Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare to reduce
the number of first-time violations and repeat offenses of Sections
23152 and 23153, as follows:
(1) The Department of Motor Vehicles, upon receipt of the court's
abstract conviction for a violation listed in paragraph (7), shall
inform the convicted person of the requirements of this section,
including the term for which the person is required to have a
certified ignition interlock device installed. The records of the
department shall reflect the mandatory use of the device for the term
required and the time when the device is required to be installed by
this code.
(2) The department shall advise the person that installation of an
ignition interlock device on a vehicle does not allow the person to
drive without a valid driver's license.
(3) Before a driver's license may be issued, reissued, or returned
to a person after a suspension or revocation of that person's
driving privilege that requires the installation of an ignition
interlock device, a person who is notified by the department pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall complete all of the following:
(A) Arrange for each vehicle owned or operated by the person to be
fitted with an ignition interlock device by a certified ignition
interlock device provider under Section 13386.
(B) Notify the department and provide to the department proof of
installation by submitting the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(C) Pay the fee, determined by the department, that is sufficient
to cover the costs of administration of this section.
(4) The department shall place a restriction on the driver's
license record of the convicted person that states the driver is
restricted to driving only vehicles equipped with a certified
ignition interlock device.
(5) (A) A person who is notified by the department pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall arrange for each vehicle with an ignition
interlock device to be serviced by the installer at least once every
60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and monitor the
operation of the device.
(B) The installer shall notify the department if the device is
removed or indicates that the person has attempted to remove, bypass,
or tamper with the device, or if the person fails three or more
times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or
calibration of the ignition interlock device.
(6) The department shall monitor the installation and maintenance
of the ignition interlock device installed pursuant to paragraph (1).

(7) A person is required to install an ignition interlock device
for the applicable term as a condition of being issued a restricted
driver's license, being reissued a driver's license, or having the
privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated subsequent to a
conviction for a violation or a suspension of a person's driver's
license, as follows:
(A) A person convicted of a violation of Section 23152 shall be
required to install an ignition interlock device, as follows:
(i) Upon a first offense, the person shall install an ignition
interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for
a mandatory term of five months that begins once that
person has provided proof of installation .
(ii) Upon a second offense, the person shall install an ignition
interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for
a mandatory term of 12 months that begins once that person
has provided proof of installation .
(iii) Upon a third offense, the person shall install an ignition
interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for
a mandatory term of 24 months that begins once that person
has provided proof of installation .
(iv) Upon a fourth offense or any subsequent violation, the person
shall install an ignition interlock device in all vehicles owned or
operated by that person for a mandatory term of 36 months
that begins once that person has provided proof of installation
.
(B) A person convicted of a violation of Section 23153 shall
install an ignition interlock device, as follows:
(i) Upon a first offense, the person shall install an ignition
interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for
a mandatory term of 12 months that begins once that person
has provided proof of installation .
(ii) Upon a second offense, the person shall install an ignition
interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for
a mandatory term of 24 months that begins once that person
has provided proof of installation .
(iii) Upon a third offense, the person shall install an ignition
interlock device in all vehicles owned or operated by that person for
a mandatory term of 36 months that begins once that person
has provided proof of installation .
(iv) Upon a fourth offense or any subsequent violation, the person
shall install an ignition interlock device in all vehicles owned or
operated by that person for a mandatory term of 48 months
that begins once that person has provided proof of installation
.
(C) The terms prescribed in this paragraph shall begin once a
person has provided to the department proof of installation pursuant
to paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 13386 and upon
restoration of the driving privilege pursuant to Section 13352.

(8) A person who is notified by the department, pursuant to this
subdivision, is exempt from the requirements of this subdivision if
within 30 days of the notification, the person certifies to the
department all of the following:
(A) The person does not own a vehicle.
(B) The person does not have access to a vehicle at his or her
residence.
(C) The person no longer has access to the vehicle being driven by
the person at the time he or she was arrested for a violation that
subsequently resulted in a conviction for a violation listed in this
subdivision.
(D) The person acknowledges that he or she is only allowed to
drive a vehicle that is fitted with a functioning ignition interlock
device.
(E) The person acknowledges that he or she is required to have a
valid driver's license before he or she can drive.
(F) The person is subject to the requirements of this section when
he or she purchases or has access to a vehicle.
(9) Subdivisions (j), (k), (m), (n), and (o) of Section 23575
apply to this section.
(10) If a person fails to comply with any of the requirements
regarding ignition interlock devices, the mandatory term for which
the ignition interlock device is required to be installed shall be
reset by the department.
(b) (1) Every manufacturer and manufacturer's agent certified by
the department to provide ignition interlock devices, under Section
13386, shall adopt the following fee schedule that provides for the
payment of the costs of the ignition interlock device by offenders
subject to this chapter in amounts commensurate with that person's
income relative to the federal poverty level, as defined in Section
127400 of the Health and Safety Code:
(A) A person with an income at 100 percent of the federal poverty
level and below is responsible for 10 percent of the cost of the
ignition interlock device. The ignition interlock device provider is
responsible for absorbing the cost of the ignition interlock device
that is not paid by the person.
(B) A person with an income at 101 to 200 percent of the federal
poverty level is responsible for 25 percent of the cost of the
ignition interlock device. The ignition interlock device provider is
responsible for absorbing the cost of the ignition interlock device
that is not paid by the person.
(C) A person with an income at 201 to 300 percent of the federal
poverty level is responsible for 50 percent of the cost of the
ignition interlock device. The ignition interlock device provider is
responsible for absorbing the cost of the ignition interlock device
that is not paid by the person.
(D) All other offenders are responsible for 100 percent of the
cost of the ignition interlock device.
(2) The cost of the ignition interlock device may only be raised
annually equal to the Consumer Price Index.
(3) The offender's income may be verified by presentation of that
person's current federal income tax return or three months of monthly
income statements.
(c) This section does not permit a person to drive without a valid
driver's license.
(d) The requirements of this section are in addition to any other
requirements of law.
(e) For the purposes of this section, "vehicle" does not include a
motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device
that can be installed on a motorcycle. A person subject to an
ignition interlock device restriction shall not operate a motorcycle
for the duration of the ignition interlock device restriction period.

(f) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2010.
23700.5. The department shall not implement Section 23700 if, by
January 31, 2010, the department fails to obtain nonstate funds for
the programming costs of the pilot program specified in Section
23700.
23701. On or before January 1, 2015, the Department of Motor
Vehicles shall report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness
of the pilot program authorized under this chapter in reducing the
number of first-time violations and repeat offenses of Sections 23152
and 23153 in the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange,
Sacramento, and San Diego Tulare
.
23702. This chapter shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2016, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends
that date.
SEC. 4. This bill shall become operative only if Senate Bill 598
of the 2009-10 Regular Session is enacted and becomes operative on or
before January 1, 2010.
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

San Diego DUI lawyers are often asked How long does DMV report actions or convictions on driver license records?

•Most convictions of traffic offenses, such as hit and run, reckless driving, and driving under the influence (DUI) will remain on your record for 7 years from the violation date and count as 2 points.

•Most other traffic offense convictions will remain on your record for 3 years from the violation date and count as 1 point.

•Accidents are reported for 3 years from the accident date. If you are found to be at fault, the accident normally counts as 1 point.

•Actions taken against your driving privilege, such as a suspension or revocation due to a DUI or a failure to provide proof of financial responsibility, will be reported for 3 years from the proof termination date or the reinstatement date, whichever is earlier.

•A Failure To Appear for DUI offenses will be reported for 10 years from the violation date. All other Failure To Appears and Failure to Pay fines will be reported for 5 years from the violation date.

For help, visit the free Evaluation form by a premier San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney.

San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney Specialist Rick Mueller is the only DMV - DUI attorney who was the featured Speaker at so many successful DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last several years. Rick spoke on Strategies in Handling DUI Cases In California providing 363 pages of helpful materials to aid DUI / DMV attorneys and also spoke on "Current DMV Suspension Hearing Issues, Techniques & Writs" at the San Diego County Courthouse. Having been specially recognized as a Contributor to the California Drunk Driving Law book, he is now the Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as California's bible for DUI defense, the book features some of San Diego County attorney Rick Mueller's hard work. Rick is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association. He is also a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He speaks at Strategies in Handling DUI Cases seminars, at the DUI & Drug Defense seminar at the San Diego Bar Building, at the North San Diego County Bar Association's Drunk Driving - DMV seminars, and at the Public Defender's Office DMV - DUI Training seminars. Rick is in Good Standing with the State Bar of California.

24/7 Twit & Contact Information for San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer:

If you need quality DMV - DUI legal representation, call 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI (1-800-843-5293)

Every San Diego DUI / DMV case criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller defends is different with respect to the facts, strategy and/or tactic.


Partial List of DUI / DMV Victories & Drivers' Licenses Saved In Past Several Years

Name
BAC%
Type of Test/Other


Adams
.14
Breath/Military Gate + Prior

Adams
Neg
Blood + Refusal

Ames
.02
Breath - Under 21/Accident

Arana
.03
Breath - Under 21/Speeding

Archer
.08
Breath/Erratic, weaving

Arcia
.14
Breath/Accident

Arredondo
.21
Blood/Weaving

Atkinson
.30
Blood/Accident + child in car

Babak
.20
Blood/Refusal + Prior

Babauta
.08/.09
Breath

Badway
.10
Breath/Accident

Bafi
.16
Breath/Improper U-turn

Bak
.13
Blood/Driving without headlights

Balmer
.08/.07
Breath/California roll+ Prior

Becerra
.01/.01
Breath/Trespass - Under 21

Beckel
.07
Blood/Ran Red Light

Beglinger
.08/.07
Breath/Ran out of gas

Bohs
.22
Breath/Weaving per citizen

Boughner
.10/.06
Blood + Breath/Speeding

Boud
.06
Breath - Under 21/Accident

Boud
.06
Breath - Under 21/Accident

Brady
.13
Blood + Prior

Brooks
.13/.14
Breath/Drive on Center Median

Burgess
.16
Blood/Almost Struck Another Vehicle/p>

Burns
.14
Blood/Speeding

Buettgenbach
.08
Breath/Checkpoint

Cameron
.27
Blood

Camper
.08/.07
Breath

Carrillo
.05/.06
Breath + Under 21/US Border

Cheney
.19/.17
Breath-Mouth Alcohol/Weaving

Cherico
.14/.15
Breath + Blood/Accident

Chipman
neg op
Accident

Choitner
.11/.11
Breath/Speeding - stop others

Comer
.17
Blood/Ex. of Speed, Backing Up @ Red Light

Cotton
neg op
Speeding/illegal movement

Coulthard
.22
Breath/Weave/No signal/Speed

Cox
.08/.07
Breath/Blood

Demoranville
neg op
Accident, DUI

Diehl
.18
Breath/Accident

Downing
Drugs
Blood/Weaving

Dolan
.22
Blood/Speed/Straddle + Prior

Dufau
.20
Blood + Under 21/Accidente

Eaves
.12/.13
Breath/Weaving

Edmett
.15/.16
Breath/Failure to stop

Elmashini
.11
Breath/Blood/90/30 mph zone

Erbschloe
.17
Blood/Accident + Hit & Run

Ericson
Drugs
Blood/Breath + Hit & Run

Espindola
.08/.07
Breath/Blood + Accident

Even
.23
Blood/Erratic per citizen

Ezzati
.17/.18
Breath/Accident

Fall
.23
Blood/Accident

Frederick
.10
Breath/Obstructed license plate

Gallaher
.04
Breath/50/20 mph zone + Under 21

Gichuki
.19
Blood/Accident

Gonzales
.21
Blood/Accident

Greer
.08/.09
Breath/Blood/Speeding

Guiterrez
.15/.17
Breath/No headlights

Gundersen
.13
Breath/Not Stop @ stop sign

Gunion
.17
Blood/Breath/Ignition running
in #1 lane + Under 21 years old

Hall
.09
Breath/No front license plate

Hammett
.07/.08
Breath

Harpell
.19
Blood/Weaving

Harris
.15/.16
Breath/Failed to go on green

Hauck
.11
Blood/Speeding + Prior

Hawkins
.09/.10
Blood/Breath + Under 21 years

Hawkins
.28
Blood/Drunk per citizen

Heinonen
.10
Blood/Headlight not on

Hernandez
.17
Blood/Blocking a roadway + Prior

Hersum
.07/.08
Blood/Breath/Speeding/Tailgating + Under 21

Heitman
.05/.06
Breath + Under 21 years old

Hughes
.03
Breath + Under 21/No Seatbelt

Hunt
.19
Blood/DUI Checkpoint

Iburg
.08
Breath/Impede Right of Way

Jackson
.15
Breath/Refusal

Johnson
.15
Breath + Under 21 years old

Johnston
.14/.15
Breath/Accident

Kelley
.06
Breath/Under 21

Kennedy
.15
Blood/Weaving

Ko
.17
Breath/Accident + Prior

Kohrig
.16
Breath

Kowalski
.08
Breath

Kruger
.19
Blood/Accident, no license

Kuma
.17
Blood + Accident

Lam
.16
Breath/Under 21

Ledyarb
.10/.07
Breath/Blood + Accident

Lewis
.11/.12
Breath/On side of highway

Lind
.17
Blood/Failure to use turn signal

Logsdon
.40
Blood/Accident + Hit & Run

Lorber
Refusal
Refusal + Prior

Lowe
.15
Blood/Wide turns

Machida
neg op
No stop/illegal movement-red arrow/reckless driving

Mal
.12
Breath/Fell asleep, blocking road + Prior

Maldonado
.20/.21
Breath/unsafe speed

Manglicmot
.13
Blood/911 call, 20/25

Mannion
.20/.21
Breath/U.S. Border + Prior

Marek
Drugs
Blood/Brake light out

Martin
.08
Breath/Stopped on side of road

Martineau
.25
Blood/Speeding + Straddling

Mason
neg op
Speeding/DUI

McCalley
.13
Breath/Weaving

McCarthy
.09/.10
Breath/Drove to Military gate

McMahon
.11
Blood/Speeding

Mejia
.15
Blood/Broken Tail Lamp

Michael
.09
Breath/Weaving

Montoya
.15
Breath/Weaving

Montoya
.12/.12
Breath/Driving w/out lights + Prior

Morgan
.22
Blood/Sleeping in vehicle

Murphy
.13
Blood/Weaving

Navarro
.08
Breath/95 mph

Neu
.09/.10
Breath/Wrong way street + prior APS

O'Connell
.08
Breath/Accident

Pardoen
.04
Breath/No stop + Under 21

Parish
.05
Breath/Accident

Parsons
neg op
Six moving violations

Patton
.15
Blood/Urinating in Public

Patil
.07/.09
Blood/Breath/Weaving

Peck
.11
Breath/Straddling, Fluctuating speeds

Peter
.16
Forced Blood/95 mph + Refusal

Philip
.11
Breath

Porter
.06
Breath + Under 21

Porter
.24
Blood/Accident + Prior

Proctor
.08/.09
Breath/El Centro Bureau of Land Management + Prior

Purkey
.08/.07
Breath - Under 21/Checkpoint

Pyne
.08/.07
Breath/Weaving + Prior

Quintero
.08/.06
Breath/Speeding + Under 21

Ramirez
.10
Breath/Stopped by MP at Gate

Reilly
.14/.13
Breath/BUI - Negligent

Reinicke
.11
Blood/Wrong side, nearly hit cop

Rinard
.08/.07
Breath

Roberts
.20
Blood

Robeiro
.09
Breath + Accident

Rothblatt
.11
Blood/Accident

Rudden
.19
Blood/Speeding

Sadiarin
.15
Blood/Passing thru Cal Trans

Scales
.18
Breath + Accident

Scanlon
.14
Breath/Friends throwing cans

Schaefer
.04/.03
Breath/Speeding + Under 21

Schmidt
.16
Breath/Red Light/Speed+ Prior

Schulte
Drug
Blood/Accident

Schwartz
.12
Blood/Weaving

Segovia
Refusal
Accident

Serrano
.11
Breath/Officer Miller

Servis
.05/.06
Breath/U.S. Border Stop

Shoemaker
09/.10
Breath

S Shirey
.08
Blood/Speeding

Shook
.09/.10
Breath/Driving without headlights

Shubert
.08/.06
Breath

Snyder
.05
Blood/Drugs

Sorooshian
.13/.14
Breath/Stopped to use cell phone

Spindler
.06/.08
Blood/Breath

Sticka
.16
Breath/Tailgating

Sukhinin
.09
Blood/Unauthorized BL. Drawer

Tangeman
.11
Blood

Taylor
.16
Breath/No front license plate

Tchernycheva
skills
Rear-end accident

Thomas
.16
Blood/Unauthorized BL. Drawer

Thompson
.08/.06
Breath

Thurm
.11
Breath/Weaving + Speeding

Vanbibber
.09
Breath/Disregard signal

Vera Cruz
.17
Blood/Weaving side to side

Virk
.09/.06
Breath/Ran out of gas

Wait
.021
Breath/Under 21-no headlights

Watts
skills
Improper turning

Weaver
.09/.07
Breath

Weber
.18
Blood/Accident

Whitcomb
.26/.27
Breath/Accident + Prior

White
.09
Blood/Accident

Whiteman
.08
Blood + Accident

Williams
.22
Blood/Tinted Windows

Wilson
.19
Blood/Drifting + Child in car

Yeargin
.09
Breath

Yen
.15/.16
Breath/Weaving

Zuckerman
.08
Breath/Accident

Victories listed were dependent on the facts of the particular cases. The results may obviously differ if based on different facts.

San Diego victories do not in themselves constitute or guarantee a prediction in your DMV or DUI outcome.

Of course, your likelihood of prevailing increases significantly if you retain a San Diego California DUI Lawyer Specialist.

NewsWire Twit! San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys learned today that California Highway Patrol’s state Office of Traffic Safety grant to make more San Diego DUI arrests on State Route 76. The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department found shared funding for this San Diego DUI idea as well.

Here's the deal: target and apprehend San Diego DUI - drunk drivers along a 38-mile segment of the 76. This goes August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010, and the CHP will reimburse the Sheriff’s Department $25,000 for its involvement. It's 38-mile segment beginning in Oceanside to East Grade Road.

They always find money for San Diego DUI efforts. CHP reserved $35,000 of its grant to form community outreach partnerships and law enforcement support from the Sheriff’s Department and from the Oceanside Police Department.

If you need immediate help, visit a free online evaluation for your San Diego DUI and a Superb Drunk Driving Defense lawyer will get right back to you.

San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorneys wonder about these illegal San Diego DUI checkpoints.

September 11, 2009 celebrated the Escondido Police Department's San Diego DUI Checkpoint at the intersection of El Norte Parkway at Washington Avenue from 6:00 PM until 1:00 AM. The emphasis of this San Diego DUI checkpoint was to detect intoxicated and unlicensed drivers as well as to provide a highly visible operation to deter driving under the influence.

The following activity resulted from this San Diego DUI checkpoint:

- 1,537 vehicles entered the checkpoint eastbound on El Norte Parkway
- 1,294 vehicles were screened in primary
- 85 vehicles sent to secondary (drivers who could not produce a drivers license or who were suspected of San Diego DUI )
- 7 drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs
- 1 misdemeanor arrest was made (non San Diego DUI )
- 1 felony warrant arrest was made (non San Diego DUI )
- 11 San Diego DUI field sobriety tests were administered
- 62 vehicles were impounded at this San Diego DUI checkpoint, 13 drivers did not have auto insurance, 12 drivers had a suspended drivers license and 42 drivers did not have a drivers license
- 58 citations were issued at this San Diego DUI checkpoint

If this San Diego DUI checkpoint or any other San Diego DUI roadblock affects, consider help right here.

SanDiegoDUI SDDDA.net Blog California DMV has proof problems under the statutes - elements of the probation vi.. http://bit.ly/16nRQE
about 18 hours ago from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog August 1, 2009 was a key DUI defense date as this San Diego lawyer pumped up other attorn.. http://bit.ly/174q2J
about 18 hours ago from twitterfeed
SDDDA.net Blog Attorneys who specialize in DUI criminal defense believe the police incentives and .. http://bit.ly/1ndK5v
6:57 PM Sep 11th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog Urgent Newswire Post! San Diego DUI checkpoint in Encinitas tonight, friday, September 11.. http://bit.ly/4knhO0
6:57 PM Sep 11th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog Twitting Attorneys advise on best DUI defense options for folks in San Diego with drunk d.. http://bit.ly/pk9pO
6:57 PM Sep 11th from twitterfeed

SDDDA.net Blog Click here to see California DUI Lawyers Association Specialist Rick Mueller in act.. http://bit.ly/X8trW
7:10 PM Sep 10th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog Comprehensive San Diego California DUI Attorney Twits, Sites & Blogs to save your Califor.. http://bit.ly/msMKg
7:10 PM Sep 10th from twitterfeed
SDDDA.net Blog Partial Lack of Significance of Miranda Rights in DUI cases in California: Californ.. http://bit.ly/hV0dg
1:29 PM Sep 9th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog San Diego DUI Lawyer information was twitted & blogged over the weekend by San Diego Coun.. http://bit.ly/4Rjx9
1:29 PM Sep 9th from twitterfeed
SDDDA.net Blog Initial Costs of a DUI - is it worth it?: Look at what initial bail & towing damage.. http://bit.ly/LpRQx
1:40 PM Sep 8th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog Don't be fooled at a San Diego DMV Hearing after a DUI arrest, as experienced criminal de.. http://bit.ly/2jwo1H
1:40 PM Sep 8th from twitterfeed
SDDDA.net Blog San Diego Charger Superstar Shawne Merriman,"Lights Out" is a Hero, stops a potenti.. http://bit.ly/3CwWox
1:25 PM Sep 7th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney's top 10 DMV Things to know: San Diego DUI Crimin.. http://bit.ly/10lOqj
1:25 PM Sep 7th from twitterfeed
SDDDA.net Blog California DUI attorney challenges drunk driving law enforcement, helping you avoid.. http://bit.ly/eDak2
1:06 PM Sep 6th from twitterfeed
SDDDA.net Blog On August 1 2009, Rick lectured at the Annual DUI Seminar in connection with the Am.. http://bit.ly/3dNMb0
1:06 PM Sep 6th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog San Diego DUI Attorney challenges ban against alcohol at beach, loophole found & made fun.. http://bit.ly/Sm6Ig
1:06 PM Sep 6th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys have been warning folks all weekend: DUI checkpo.. http://bit.ly/mGPja
1:06 PM Sep 6th from twitterfeed
SDDDA.net Blog California DUI criminal defense attorneys can prove that people often drive after d.. http://bit.ly/I1WkE
6:55 PM Sep 5th from twitterfeed
SDDUIL Blog Google notices the twitting and blogging of Superb - rated San Diego DUI lawyer: Google n.. http://bit.ly/cVzrp
1:01 PM Sep 5th from twitterfeed
SDDDA.net Blog Urgent! California DUI criminal attorneys warn of checkpoints throughout the state .. http://bit.ly/2VgL66
6:58 PM Sep 4th from twitterfeed

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller at San Diego County DUI Law Center lists the different San Diego court, police departments and official offices. A drunk driving attorney may have to point someone in one or more of these San Diego directions:



San Diego Police Department

•The Northern Division (4275 Eastgate Mall)
Serves the neighborhoods of Bay Ho, Bay Park, Carmel Valley, Clairemont Mesa East, Clairemont Mesa West, Del Mar Heights, La Jolla, La Jolla Village, Mission Bay Park, Mission Beach, North City, North Clairemont, Pacific Beach, Torrey Pines and University City.
•The Northeastern Division (13396 Salmon River Road)
Serves the neighborhoods of Black Mountain Ranch, Carmel Mountain, Miramar, Miramar Ranch North, Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Encantada, Rancho Penasquitos, Sabre Springs, Scripps Ranch, Sorrento Valley, and Torrey Highlands.
•The Eastern Division (9225 Aero Drive)
Serves the neighborhoods of Allied Gardens, Birdland, Del Cerro, Grantville, Kearny Mesa, Lake Murray, Mission Valley East, San Carlos, Serra Mesa and Tierrasanta.
•The Southeastern Division (7222 Skyline Drive)
Serves the neighborhoods of Alta Vista, Bay Terrace, Chollas View, Emerald City, Encanto, Jamacha-Lomita, Lincoln Park, Mountain View, Mount Hope, Paradise Hills, Shelltown, Skyline, Southcrest and Valencia.
•The Central Division (2501 Imperial Avenue)
Serves the neighborhoods of Balboa Park, Barrio Logan, Core-Columbia, Cortez, East Village, Gaslamp, Golden Hill, Grant Hill, Harborview, Horton Plaza, Little Italy, Logan Heights, Marina, Memorial, Park West, Sherman Heights, South Park and Stockton.
•The Western Division (5215 Gaines Street)
Serves the neighborhoods of Hillcrest, La Playa, Linda Vista, Loma Portal, Midtown, Midway District, Mission Hills, Mission Valley West, Morena, North Park, Ocean Beach, Old Town, Point Loma Heights, Roseville-Fleetridge, Sunset Cliffs, University Heights and Wooded Area.
•The Southern Division (1120 27th Street)
Serves the neighborhoods of Border, Egger Highlands, Nestor, Ocean Crest, Otay Mesa, Otay Mesa West, Palm City and San Ysidro.
•The Midcity Division (4310 Landis Street)
Serves the neighborhoods of Azalea/Hollywood Park, Castle, Cherokee Point, Chollas Creek, Colina del Sol, College Area East, College Area West, Corridor, Darnall, El Cerrito, Fairmont Village, Fox Canyon, Gateway, Islenair, Kensington, Normal Heights, Oak Park, Rolando, Swan Canyon, Talmadge, Teralta East, Teralta West, and Webster.
San Diego County Sheriff
The Office of the Sheriff for the County of San Diego has existed since 1850. The Sheriff holds an elective office, which is subject to the vote of the citizens of the county. The Sheriff's is elected to a four year term and he or she may serve additional terms if re-elected by the citizens.

San Diego Harbor Police Department
The San Diego Harbor Police Department is the premier police presence in San Diego Bay, the San Diego International Airport (also known as Lindbergh Field), and on all Tidelands around the bay. Our jurisdiction extends through the five member cities of the Port District, which include San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City.

Carlsbad Police Department
With a commitment to professional excellence, the members of the Carlsbad Police Department provide quality service to the community to ensure the preservation of life and property and the maintenance of law and order.

Chula Vista Police Department
Providing a proactive and professional level of police service ensuring safety through commitment, integrity, and trust.

Coronado Police Department
The Mission of the Coronado Police Department is to protect and enhance the quality of life for all who live, work or visit our community by delivering the highest quality of public safety services.

Escondido Police Department
Committed to being responsive to community needs, promoting mutual trust, and delivering a quality of service that meets or exceeds the standards and expectations of the people we serve.

La Mesa Police Department
To best serve the needs of their citizens, the La Mesa Police Department operates several public education programs and provides numerous services to their community.

San Diego County District Attorney
The Employees of the San Diego District Attorney, in partnership with the Community they serve, are dedicated to the pursuit of truth, justice and protection of the innocent, and the prevention of crime through the vigorous and professional prosecution of those who violate the law.

San Diego State University Police Department
The department's professionally trained, service-oriented staff fulfill life and property safety needs for a campus population of over 35,000.

Superior Court of San Diego County
The official website for the San Diego County Superior Court.

San Diego Central Court
The first permanent courthouse was built in San Diego in 1870. Over the years, the courthouse has been reconstructed and expanded. The 1889 building was finally torn down in 1959 to make way for the present courthouse, completed in 1961. The Main Courthouse is occupied by the Superior Court's Criminal Courts, Family Support, and the Sheriff's Office.

East County Regional Center
The East County Regional Center is a facility occupied by the Superior Court, Sheriff, Probation, District Attorney, Revenue and Recovery, and the Board of Supervisors. The East County Regional Center hears Civil, Criminal, Family and Juvenile Dependency cases. The court is supported by calendar, jury services, arbitration, exhibit, and business office sections.

North County Regional Center
The North County Regional Center is a facility shared by the Superior Court, Sheriff, Probation, District Attorney, Revenue and Recovery, and the Board of Supervisors. The North County Superior Court is a full service branch court. Currently the Court hears Criminal, Civil, Family Law, Probate, Small Claims, Appeal, Adoption, Traffic and Minor Offense cases. This branch court has a venue encompassing most of Northern San Diego County.

South County Regional Center
The South County Regional Center is a facility occupied by the Superior Court, Sheriff, Probation, District Attorney, Revenue and Recovery, and the Board of Supervisors.This branch hears Criminal, Civil, Family Law, and Juvenile Dependency cases.

San Diego Central Jail
The San Diego Central Jail is the central receiving point for adult males arrested in the greater San Diego metropolitan area. Male adults arrested in the north county area would generally be taken to the Vista Detention Facility in Vista. Adult female arrestees are generally taken to the Las Colinas Detention Facility in Santee.

San Diego Public Defender
Note: A public defender cannot represent anyone at California DMV license suspension hearings.

San Diego City Attorney
The City Attorney is elected by the people. This is a guarantee that the legal head of the government will be able to protect interests of all San Diego and not merely be an attorney appointed to carry out wishes of council or manager.

Your San Diego DMV attorney has ONLY 10 CALENDAR DAYS after the DUI arrest to timely contact San Diego's DMV Licensing Operations Division for a DMV hearing to avoid suspension of driving privileges.

Complete the Free San Diego California DUI / Drunk Driving Defense Evaluation to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privilege in California. Or call Rick now on his cell phone at (619) 218-2997.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers at San Diego County DUI Law Center are asked daily about our "Hero" Shawne Merriman. As you know, he wisely stopped Ms. Tequila from driving on our fine roads. Tequila apparently had alcohol in her such that those in know maintained she was "impaired" or intoxicated and should not be driving.

Well, here's what happened today according to San Diego California drunk driving attorneys:

San Diego's DA will not bring any charges against San Diego Chargers Superstar linebacker Shawne Merriman in the alleged domestic dispute with MTV star Tila Tequila. He is a hero after all, as twitted & blogged earlier in the week.

Upon review of the investigation into the Poway home incident involving our Hero Shawne Merriman, the District Attorney determined there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any crime was committed. Duh. Case closed.

Tequila 911'd the cops from Merriman's crib around 3:45 a.m. Sunday and claimed that "Lights Out" choked her, restrained her and threw her to the ground. Merriman wisely stopped her from driving drunk. He may have saved her a San Diego DUI charge as well.

Sheriff's deputies saw no signs of any Tequila injury or a struggle. Yet Tequila filed a citizen's complaint against our Hero that led to his being arrested and unfortunately jailed for like two and a half hours.

DUI attorneys in San Diego California want people who have access to Twitter & Facebook to see this San Diego DUI / Checkpoint in action. Maybe this video can help you avoid being arrested for drunk driving charge in San Diego and therefore avoid having to retain a quality San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer.
In the video, you can see the CHP and other San Diego DUI cops catch the drivers. They all go through the primary San Diego DUI inspection area. Some drivers go on to San Diego DUI checkpoint's secondary area where they are often given DUI tests, some of which are optional. If arrested you must give a San Diego DUI blood or breath test, either of which have defenses.

The Supreme Court has made it clear the cops must play by the rules. But avoid being trapped in a San Diego DUI checkpoint if you can. That's the best advice by San Diego drunk driving criminal defense attorneys.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers are often asked why would police waste valuable money and resources on a WEDNESDAY night DUI Checkpoint in Orange County?

Answer: Clueless. Nobody knows.

There have been midweek checkpoints at this California town and no DUI arrests made. But apparently they don't care.

One thing all DUI police must do - San Diego or anywhere in California - is follow the Supreme Court's rules regarding lawful checkpoints.

Orange County drunk driving police will conduct a DUI checkpoint tonight at Harbor Boulevard and Fair Drive. From 6 p.m. to midnight, California dui police will be stationed on northbound Harbor Boulevard at Fair Drive and stopping vehicles passing through the checkpoint and educating them about the dangers of drinking and driving.

If you need DUI defense help in San Diego California,look no further.

San Diego attorneys present California DUI and DMV Penalties

Criminal (Misdemeanor) Sentences for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol and/or drugs (Vehicle Code Section 23152)
OFFENSE
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCES WHEN PROBATION IS GRANTED
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCES WITHOUT PROBATION
WITH OR WITHOUT PROBATION

FIRST OFFENSE
within 10 years
Attendance at an alcohol/drug program, a fine of $390 to $1,000, plus substantial, mandatory penalty assessments (totalling up to an additional 180% apx.), plus either (A) 48 hours to 6 months jail and 6 months license suspension; or (B) a license restriction to and from work, during work and to and from DUI program following any DMV suspension (if no refusal).
96 hours to 6 months in jail, $390 to $1,000 fine, and a 6-month license suspension.
May impound vehicle for 6 months.

Up to 3 years ignition interlock device (IID), and Additional Jail if Child Passenger, if 30 mph over speed limit on freeway or if 20 mph over speed limit on other roads, if Refusal of chemical test, or if .15% BAC or more.

SECOND OFFENSE
within 10 years
Attendance at 18-30 month alcohol/drug program, a fine of $390 to $1,000 plus substantial, mandatory penalty assessments, 96 hours to 1 year in jail, installation of ignition interlock (IID) device for up to 3 years, and 2 year license suspension, with a possible license restriction to and from work, during work and to and from DUI program after 1 year of suspension and completion of DUI program. However, your license shall be suspended if the offense occurred in a vehicle which requires a class 1, 2, A or B license.
90 days to 1 year in jail, $390 to $1,000 fine plus substantial, mandatory penalty assessments, IID up to 3 years, and 2 year license suspension.

THIRD OFFENSE
within 10 years
120 days to 1 year in jail, $390 to $1,000 fine plus substantial, mandatory penalty assessments, a 3-year license revocation, and an 18-month alcohol/drug program if you have not completed one before.
120 days to 1 year in jail, $390 to $1,000 fine, and a 3-year license revocation.

FOURTH OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE
within 10 years
120 days to 1 year in jail, $390 to $1,000 fine plus substantial, mandatory penalty assessments, a 4-year license revocation, and an 18-month alcohol/drug program if you have not completed one before.
16 months, or 2 or 3 years in state prison, or 180 days to 1 year in county jail; $390 to $1,000 fine, and a 4-year license revocation.



DMV Penalties for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol and/or drugs
OFFENSE
BOH/REFUSAL
SENTENCE

FIRST OFFENSE
.08 or greater
4-month suspension

" "
Refusal
1 year suspension

SECOND OFFENSE
within 10 years
.08 or greater
1 year suspension

" "
Refusal
2 year revocation

THIRD OFFENSE
within 10 years
.08 or greater
3 year revocation

" "
Refusal
3 year revocation

FOURTH OFFENSE
within 10 years
.08 or greater
4 year revocation

" "
Refusal
4 year revocation


DMV Suspension if .01% while on Probation

DMV shall immediately suspend the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle:
...if the person was on probation for Vehicle Code Section 23152 or 23153, and the person blows .01% or more, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test.

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys are often asked about alcohol education programs. Folks convicted of a San Diego DUI can be referred to, either by the San Diego California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), one of 4 San Diego DUI courts, or both.

Some San Diego drivers can be ordered to attend a San Diego DUI 12-hour alcohol program. This is the most basic level of education that is offered, and it is limited to people who are convicted of charges less than an actual San Diego DUI. Most commonly, the offense is a "wet reckless" charge with a .07 or less BAC, where alcohol played a role in reckless driving. In some cases, this class might satisfy San Diego DUI court orders, but not meet the requirements of the San Diego DMV.

The standard San Diego drunk driving course attended by San Diego DUI first offenders is either a three-month, 30-hour program or a nine-month, 60-hour program, depending on the blood-alcohol content level registered at the time of the offense.

Second-time San Diego DUI offenders are often sentenced to an 18-month program. This usually includes 52 hours of group counseling, 12 hours of alcohol and drug education, six hours of community reentry monitoring, and biweekly individual interviews during the first 12 months of the San Diego drunk driving program.

Sometimes, when necessary to get a Restricted License to drive, one may have to enroll in a San Diego DUI alcohol program by calling (858) 467-6810 [Central San Diego], (760) 891-1500 [North County], (619) 562-5850 [East County], or (619) 409-1780 [South County]. Here's a complete list.

San Diego's DUI Alcohol Programs

In San Diego county there are four (4) locations that provide DUI alcohol programs. These are the providers authorized by both the Court and DMV. So if you should be convicted of a San Diego DUI in court and assigned a program as part of your probation, or you if DMV sent you a decision suspending your license or driving privilege, you will be required to participate in one of the programs offered at these locations.

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

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

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


The school program is typically divided into two parts. A six week educational part held two days a week (90 minutes each) for 12 weeks at the same time there is a more informal gathering of 10 to 12 individuals another two days per week (again 90 minutes each).

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

Online DUI program for out-of-state people, under limited circumstances:

This is not approved by California DMV, only California Court if directed by Assessment Unit of Court. California DMV's program requirement is not satisfied.

If you are out of state, you may be able to do your program for Court online to one of three places: http://www.myduiclass.com , http://www.tomwilsoncounseling.com/onlineDUI.html , or http://www.duicourseonline.com/DUICourseOnline.aspx .

If your state of residence, or the state where the offense occured in is listed here, you need to follow any indicated steps. If your state is not listed below, that simply means that Right Direction Services' online alcohol program has not been contacted by the authority in that state to require clients to get preapproval.

If you are ordered by the Court to do the program out of state, you must also request San Diego Court's Assessment Unit (when you later speak with them) that you be directed to do your program online.

Right Direction Services LLC
1415 Pate Plaza
PMB 452
South Beloit, IL 61080
Phone: (815) 389-9564
Fax: (773) 822-0793
Email: support@myduiclass.com

For help with your San Diego DUI, contact a professional San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer at 1 800 THE-LAW-DUI.

San Diego DUI Lawyer Articles and San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney News

Please click above link and then the titles to view the article:

What You Must Do Within 10 Days of being arrested of a DUI in San Diego County...
License Ramifications of California DUI on Illinois Resident...
FAQ Article: New California DUI Reportability Laws & Insurance Ramifications...
Why San Diego California needs to require San Diego DUI police videos...
Are San Diego Breath Tests Reliable?...
Advances in San Diego DUI Breath Testing Technologies...
Significance of a Breath Temperature on a San Diego DUI breath test machine...
Is Odor of Alcohol Probable Cause to Arrest for a San Diego DUI?...
Retrograde Extrapolation - San Diego DUI guess of higher BAC at time of driving...
Have a Hangover? You may be prosecuted for "DUH" - Driving Under the Influence of a Hangover...
San Diego DUI Prosecution Expert's ASSUMED "BAC"...
What was that hand-held gadget I blew into? A PAS (Preliminary Alcohol Screening) Test ...
Stop unauthorized release of hospital blood test & medical treatment records...


San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge.

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys wish the cops were made to use videos when drunk driving suspects are encountered. It's called the truth.

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

A DUI cop did use the video camera in many of his DUI arrests and the video eventually lead to hard evidence of his tactics. Critically, for citizen protection from renegade law enforcement personnel, San Diego DUI/ drunk driving / DWI law enforcement vehicles should be equipped with DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI video cameras.

In the UK, only one crime was solved by each 1,000 "CCTV cameras" in London last year, a report about the city's surveillance network shows. The million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch real criminals. In a month CCTV helped capture just 8 out of 269 suspected robbers.

David Davis MP, contends it should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent as CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness. We are talking about an intrusion on privacy, with little or no improvement in security.

The English government has spent a large amount of money - £500m on CCTV cameras. Officers from 11 boroughs have formed a new unit which collects and labels footage centrally before distributing them across the force and media, leading to more than 1,000 identifications out of 5,260 images processed, to "help communities feel safer".

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys are concerned that an excessive amount of drunk driving checkpoints are happening in the San Diego County California area resulting in San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers needing to be retained.

A driver caught police on video in an illegal checkpoint the other night in San Diego County. The San Diego Sheriff and California Highway Patrol set up a Sobriety Checkpoint in Ramona California on September 4th

Oceanside Police Department will surprise folks with a San Diego DUI checkpoint tonight. More undisclosed drunk driving roadblocks will be seen because the Sheriff’s Department has scheduled San Diegod DUI checkpoints this Labor Day weekend in Del Mar and Solana Beach.

San Diego police seeking steep DUI penalties throughout San Diego County conduct a high-visibility DUI & drunk driivng enforcement strategy for the Labor Day weekend to prevent drunk driving and contain rowdy behavior.

San Diego police officers will put out a DUI saturation patrol to get people who get behind the wheel after imbibing alcohol. CHP can be counted on for a maximum DUI enforcement and all CHP cops will be on the lookout on our roadways. A San Diego DUI / drunk driving checkpoint will be conducted by the CHP somewhere along Highway 67 tonight. They must meet state guidelines to be enforceable. California DUI Defense Attorneys can determine whether a California DUI sobriety checkpoint was conducted lawfully
Although the Supreme Court’s Ingersoll decision legitimized California Drunk Driving checkpoints, it established strict guidelines under which the roadblocks must be operated. If California DUI law enforcement do not follow the factors set out by the California Supreme Court, the evidence gained as a result of the roadblock may be suppressed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the motorist and may not be the basis to support a finding of a lawful arrest at a California DMV license suspension hearing.


Hire a San Diego DUI lawyer if you need to.

San Diego DUI checkpoint in Chula Vista, California surprised motorists from 6PM to 2AM Monday on the Eastlake Parkway. According to San Diego drunk driving criminal defense lawyers, each San Diego Drunk Driving checkpoint must meet very strict guidelines.

If the San Diego county DUI police do not follow these constitutional requirements outlined in Ingersoll, San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys will argue that the checkpoint is not lawful. That means any evidence gathered during a California DUI arrest may not be admissible in California Superior Court nor relied upon to suspend at a California DMV hearing.

The initial establishment and location of California DUI sobriety checkpoints must be decided by supervisory police officers, not officers in the field. This requirement is important to reduce the potential for arbitrary and random enforcement. drivers at California DUI checkpoints. California DUI police must use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every driver, or every third, fifth, or tenth driver to determine who to stop. This requirement takes away the discretion of the individual officer to choose to stop individual drivers without any legitimate basis. California DUI police also must give primary consideration to maintaining safety for motorists and officers. In order to minimize the risk of danger to motorists and police, proper lighting, warning signs and signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are required. The California Drunk Driving checkpoint should only be operated when the traffic volume allows the operation to be conducted safely.

California DUI roadblocks locations are regulated - Supervisory officer must choose a location that will be most effective in stopping DUI Drivers

Effective locations include roads which have a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents and California DUI arrests. The time and duration of California DUI sobriety checkpoints are of key importance. Police are expected to exercise good judgment in setting times and durations, with an eye to effectiveness of the operation, and with the safety of motorists in mind. As long as these considerations are in effect, there are no hard and fast rules as to the timing or duration of the California Drunk Driving roadblock. California sobriety checkpoints also must be established with high visibility so that drivers can easily see the nature of the roadblock. The features that promote high visibility include flashing warning lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles, and the presence of uniformed officers. Not only are such factors important for safety reasons, but advance warning will reassure motorists that the stop is duly authorized. Advance notice & escape routes are also required for San Diego DUI drunk driving checkpoints

Chula Vista is the second-largest city in San Diego. Drunk Driving checkpoints are typically placed in high-traffic areas around bars, restaurants and other attractions. They are not typically placed directly in city centers to reduce the hassle that would put on both traffic flow and local businesses. However, it is common for 200-500 cars to be stopped on an average San Diego DUI checkpoint.

California is one of nearly 40 states that allows DUI checkpoints. Other states, such as Texas, have determined they are violations of arrest procedures. In the Labor Day crackdown campaign, local law enforcement agencies are choosing whether to implement checkpoints or increase patrols on the road in order to step up San Diego DUI enforcement.

Although there were alot of tickets, the San Diego DUI checkpoint only ended in 1 arrest for drunk driving. Most DUI checkpoints initiated throughout the country have resulted in a high number of citations but a relatively low number of DUI arrests. San Diego DUI Police did not issue a statement regarding the total number of vehicles checked on Sunday night, but 1 San Diego DUI arrest is likely less than 2% of the total vehicles stopped. The San Diego DUI checkpoints are generally well-publicized, which can often lead to their lower success rate.

Common San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys' questions include Miranda Rights & warrantless drunk driving arrests. Here's a brief discussion of a warrantless DUI arrest when driving is not necessarily observed by the San Diego drunk driving cop.

Application of PC §836 to drunk driving cases nearly always involves a question of whether or not the defendant's activities witnessed by the arresting officer (or other appropriate person) amounted to the act of driving as it is defined for these purposes.

As for what acts constitute driving, the California Supreme Court cleared up a lot of confusion with the decision in Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 C3d 753, 280 CR 745, holding that proof of “driving,� in the presence of the arresting officer, requires proof that the arresting officer witnessed volitional movement of the vehicle by the defendant. Thus, the Supreme Court held that if the vehicle isn’t observed moving, i.e., rolling, then it isn’t being driven. Sister state statutes generally prohibit “driving� or “operating� a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and some prohibit both (e.g., Florida). In order to operate a motor vehicle one does not have to actually move the car. California , however, has a “driving� only statute, and as Mercer points out, this requires actual movement of the vehicle.
C. Circumstantial Evidence of Driving—Arrest Illegal
Arrest Illegal: The continuing validity of several presence-by- circumstantial- evidence decisions is in doubt in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mercer, wherein the court said:

Because Penal Code section 836, subdivision 1, provides that a warrantless misdemeanor arrest is permissible only if a public offense occurs in the arresting officer’s “presence,� and because the officer in this case did not see Mercer’s vehicle move, we conclude Mercer was not “lawfully arrested� for a violation of section 23152(a) and thus cannot be subjected to the license revocation provisio ns of sections 23157 and 13353 as presently written.

In Mercer v. DMV (1991) 53 C3d 753, 280 CR 745, the court said:

We emphasize at the outset the narrow scope of our inquiry and holding. We do not hold that observed movement of a vehicle is necessary to support a conviction for “drunk driving� under §23152. The lower courts have routinely upheld such convictions in the absence of evidence of observed movement of a vehicle. [Citation.] Nothing in this opinion calls in question the holdings of these cases.

Presumably, this situation (no presence at offense but charges filed anyway) might come about where no one was present for the offense and the respondent was arrested later on a warrant.

D. Cops and Private Citizens
Freeman v. DMV (1969) 70 C2d 235, 74 CR 259, also made it clear that a misdemeanor arrest is legal under PC. §836, so long as the offense occurred in the presence of someone, even a private citizen, and so long as that person either makes a citizen’s arrest, or tries to, or detains the offender until police arrive. The private citizen has to do more than just call the police and hang around to tell them what happened. The Freeman Court said, at page 238:

In People v. Sjosten, 262 CA2d 539, 68 CR 832 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1968), rev. den., a citizen observed the defendant prowling in the night time and called the police, who thereupon arrested the defendant. After holding that the citizen had the right to make an arrest under §837, subdivision 1, of the Penal Code, [footnote quoting language of section] the Court held that the arrest made by the officer was valid, stating at page 544:

As to the delegation of her authority to another person, §839 of the Penal Code provides: “Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.� This statute impliedly authorizes the delegation of the physical act of taking an offender into custody.

In People v. Harris, (1967) 256 CA2d 455, 63 CR 849, a citizen, who had observed the defendant commit a misdemeanor “hit-run� violation, pursued the defendant and detained him while another person went for the police. After the defendant was delivered to a police officer, the latter informed him that he was under arrest for the “hit-run� violation. In discussing the effect of the police officer’s assuming custody of the defendant after his detention by the citizen, the Court of Appeal stated: “An arrest is more than a transient momentary incident. It continues through a transfer of custody of the accused from a citizen to a peace officer.� (H arris, at p. 459-460.)
Similarly, the arrest made by CHP officer __________ in this case was a “transient momentary incident,� which, evidently, had its beginning in the action taken by the officer when he received some dispatch call regarding a certain driver. In other words, the initial detention and subsequent arrest by officer ___________ was based upon nothing other than some dispatch call to the officer.

Likewise, in People v. Walker , 203 CA2d 552, 21 CR 692, the arresting officer gave the defendant some sobriety tests and concluded he was under the influence of alcohol. The officer had not seen the defendant commit the alleged offense of drunk driving, and the arrest was therefore determined to be unlawful. Other persons at the scene told the officer that the defendant’s car had been weaving from one side of the road to the other before it collided with a parked car and came to a stop; but it does not appear that anyone had sought to make a citizen’s arrest or detain the offender until the police arrived or, as occurred in the present case, that another officer had witnessed the offender’s actions and “stopped� him. In direct response to the holding in Freeman, police frequently have the ci tizen request the arrest, and do so in writing.

In Padilla v. Meese (1986) 184 CA3d 1022, 229 CR 310, an implied consent hearing case, an agricultural inspection station attendant made a legal citizen’s arrest for drunk driving in his presence. The police officer merely took the defendant into custody for him.
In Johanson v. DMV (1995) 36 CA4th 1209, 43 CR2d 42, a citizen’s drunk driving arrest was found legal even though the citizen hadn’t explicitly stated that the arrest was for drunk driving. In People v. Campbell (1972) 27 CA3d 849, 104 CR 118, the Court said:
A private person may arrest another for “a public offense committed or attempted in his presence� (Pen. C. §837). The term “public offense� includes misdemeanors (Pen. C. §§15 and 17; Burks v. U.S. , 287 F.2d 117; People v. Sjosten , 262 Cal.App.2d 539, 543, 68 Cal.Rptr. 832) and the person making the arrest may summon others to aid him in the arrest (Pen. C. §839). Although there was evidence that Greenwood himself took defendant into custody, Greenwood also had the right to delegate “the physical act of taking an offender into custody� to the other persons summoned, Officer Johnson and Mr. Frazier (People v. Sjosten, supra, p. 544; People v. Wolfgang, (1923) 192 Cal. 754, 221 P. 907). Nor under the circumstances of immediate pursuit was Greenwood required to tell defendant that he was under arrest (Pen. C. §841; People v. Harris, 256 Cal.App.2d 455, 459, 63 Cal.Rptr. 849 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1967)). We conclude that defendant was legally arrested by Greenwood with the aid of Officers Johnson and Frazier.

E. Admission of Driving Doesn’t Create Presence
Although there is no admission here, the defendant’s admission of driving is no more relevant to whether or not the offense was committed in the presence of the arresting officer than was his alleged “subjective failure� of the field sobriety tests. Hence, the “driving in the presence� requirement cannot have been accomplished here as is specifically and statutorily required by PC §836. Conversely, however, is the fact that a respondent’s admission can establish the fact that an accident occurred, which constitutes a statutory exception to the presence requirement (See, Corrigan v. Zolin (1996) 47 CA4th 230, 54 CR2d 634 and VC §40300.5(a)).

F. No Vehicle Code Exception To Officer’s Presence Is Applicable
The only exceptions to the “presence8 0 requirement under PC §836 for a DUI arrest are found in VC §40300.5, of which none are applicable to the case at bar. VC §40300.5 states as follows:

40300.5. In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a
warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836
of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a
person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the
person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic
beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic
beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:

(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.
(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway.
(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested.
(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested.
(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.

Thus, for example, where a peace officer (having probable cause) could arrest a person for misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs not committed in the officer's presence where evidence could be destroyed unless the person was immediately arrested, VC §40300.5(e) created an exception to the presence requirement of PC §836, because evidence could be destroyed by the simple passage of time unless the person was immediately arrest ed. However, this did not authorize a peace officer to forcibly enter a residence to effect such an arrest. [See, People v. Schofield (2001) 90 CA4th 968, 109 CR2d 429.]

Good questions by a San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer:

1) Time/opportunity for client to have had a drink after driving? In other words, how long between alleged driving and officer's arrival? When was accident called in and by whom? How long was delay?

2) Was the engine still warm ie did officer check engine? If officer did not check engine, make the point that he failed to check engine.

3) Was there evidence of alcohol in car i.e. bottles? If officer did not check for bottles, make the point that he failed to check the car for such evidence (rolling your eyes at his ineptitude is optional)
did client admit to driving?

4) Where were keys? if in ignition, were keys there to turn on radio, heater etc. for music or to keep warm and not for driving?

If you need help by a San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney, visit a free Survey today.

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorneys warn folks with suspended licenses not to drive...especially to San Diego County Superior Court for a DUI status hearing.

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers regret to report that 4 felony DUI probationers were arrested during a sting at the Vista courthouse on August 31, 2009. 1 lady appeared at her court hearing with alcohol in her system in violation of her probation.

3 folks on suspended driver licenses were arrested when Escondido police officers observed them driving away from their San Diego DUI court appearances. Directly related, 3 vehicles were impounded and 3 misdemeanor traffic citations were handed out. This San Diego DUI sting ensures probationers obey conditions of their San Diego drunk driving or related felony probation.

The San Diego County DUI Probation Team spearheaded this operation. San Diego County DUI Law Center is here to protect folks.