SACRAMENTO—A bi-partisan blood alcohol content testing measure, authored by Senator Jeff Denham (R-Merced) and co-authored by Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch) and Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee last week. Committee members rejected an attempt by Vice-Chairwoman Sharon Runner (R- Lancaster) to force a vote on Senate Bill 176. The liberal members of the committee voted against sending the bill to the Assembly Floor, and instead placed SB 176 on the “Suspense File,” a parliamentary trick often used to defeat a bill without actually having to vote on it.
“This anti-drunk driving legislation has gotten through policy committees in each house TWICE, and passed through the Senate without a single “no” vote TWICE, said Denham. “Yet, the majority members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee continue to do the bidding of the A.C.L.U., the Trial Lawyers and their clients.”
SB 176 would require that drivers at-fault in an accident where a fatality has occurred have their Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level tested at the discretion of the commanding officer on the scene.
“This bill would have helped determine whether someone was driving under the influence when a fatality occurred and would have allowed for proper punishment of more drunk drivers,” Denham continued. “More importantly, this law would have gotten additional drunk drivers off the road and help save the lives of innocent citizens who are too often victims of these criminals.”
The majority members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee have established a pattern of defeating other tough anti-drunk driving measures, including Assembly Bill 4 by Assemblyman Russ Bogh (R-Beaumont), which would have permanently revoked the drivers' license of a person convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) three times. AB 4 was also opposed by the A.C.L.U. and the Trial Lawyers.
SB 176 was supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Democrat Attorney General Bill Lockyer, California State Sheriffs’ Association, Crime Victims United, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Police Chiefs’ Association, Responsible Citizens Inc., National Transportation Safety Board and California District Attorneys Association. Denham also carried SB 1429 last session, which was an identical measure authored at the request of Yvonne McMurray, whose husband was killed in a vehicle accident.
San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney Rick Mueller and his San Diego County DUI Law Center welcome you to see complete San Diego drunk driving attorney & San Diego DUI lawyer information for those accused of DUI in San Diego.
San Diego DUI attorney information could help you deal with the San Diego DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) and save your driver's license:
Why use the San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist in DUI and DMV Law
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html
List of San Diego DUI Attorney Victories and Driver's Licenses Saved in Past Few Years http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/victory.html
What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a San Diego DUI http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/10days.html
San Diego County DMV and Courts
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/courts.html
San Diego DUI Breath Test Defenses http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/defenses.html
San Diego DUI Blood Test Defenses
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/blood.html
You could take the Free San Diego DUI Survey at http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 20 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. Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller Background and Contact Information http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/about.html
San Diego DUI and DMV Penalties http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/penalty.html
Out of State License/Resident & Driving Record http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/out_of_state.html
Military Base DUI - San Diego County Federal Court - http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/base.html
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - Excellent San Diego DUI information source for San Diego county drunk driving arrest. Rights, Laws, Defenses, Penalties, DMV, Court, Military, DUI Boating, Helpful Tips and other comprehensive information. Vigorous DUI lawyer who can save your license and keep you out of jail.
Call 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI (1-800-843-5293) for a free San Diego DUI consultation http://www.1800thelawdui.com
For help with your San Diego DUI, visit http://www.SanDiegoDUIHelp.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 2:26 PM links to this post
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
San Diego DUI Attorney News: Driving While Demented (DWD)
On May 8, Betty Bowen of Pompano Beach, an 81-year-old white woman, made an illegal left turn into oncoming traffic on northbound State Road 7 in Tamarac and creamed a black man riding a motorcycle.
Witnesses told police that other cars stopping short for Bowen's bad move prevented Reginald Ervin, 41, from seeing her car until it was too late. Colliding with the front end of Bowen's Chevy Cavalier, Ervin was thrown from his bike, his helmet was knocked off, and he flew 30 feet onto a grassy swale. Less than two hours after the accident, Ervin was pronounced dead at Broward General Medical Center.
But things could have gone much worse for Betty Bowen.
For one, she came away without a scratch.
For another thing, she was wearing eyeglasses that she knew were not the correct prescription and made a turn that someone with good vision would not have made, but she won't be charged with a crime.
She wasn't even ticketed for the illegal turn.
Still, the woman is outraged that she lost her driver's license and cites only one real benefit in the crash. Bowen says she's glad she has helped "get rid of the niggers."
"One more off this Earth," she says.
Broward Sheriff's Office Det. Bruce Babcock recommended to the State of Florida that Bowen's license be revoked, but he did not give her a traffic ticket. Instead, he brought her canned goods after the incident.
Ervin's mother, Helen Williams, tells New Times that Babcock told her he didn't charge Bowen because of her age. But the detective denies it.
"There's nothing criminal involved in it," he said in a telephone interview. "For it to be a criminal case, you need one of three things: leaving the scene, DUI manslaughter, or willful and wanton disregard for life. It doesn't fall under any of those categories. You had an elderly lady with indications that she shouldn't have her license."
The number-one indication: Bowen tried to make a left onto SR 7 at a place where there's a median separating the southbound and northbound lanes. After she began her turn from NW 49th Street, there was nowhere to go but into oncoming traffic. According to accident reports, Bowen then realized her mistake and tried to make a U-turn across four lanes. Autos in the first three lanes slowed down but blocked Ervin's view as he approached at 45 mph in the right lane. Witnesses said Ervin had no chance as Bowen pulled in front of him, his motorcycle colliding with her front right bumper.
But that's not how Bowen remembers it.
The petite Wisconsin native has an apple-shaped belly and electric blue eyes. Though she rarely leaves her Pompano Beach condo, Bowen takes good care of her long hair, the outer layer of which she often dyes red and pulls back in two combs at either side of her square forehead. The bright gray bottom layer blends with red strands as they wind down past her uneven bustline.
"They took the wrong boob off," she says, to account for her shape. "Right over there at the butcher shop. Didn't give me any anesthetic. I had a towel over my face. Son of a bitch — he's a foreigner."
Betty says the man responsible for her botched mastectomy is called Ejah, but she can't be sure. After all, this happened five years ago, around the same time her health began to slip.
In addition to breast cancer, Bowen says she has "a fever in her feet," which may or may not be nerve damage related to diabetes. She believes she recently suffered a mild stroke but was able to recover. Her arms are covered in red spots she calls "nerves," and her blood pressure hovers around 200, she says. But Bowen has no doctor and takes no medication, save the blood pressure pills she once received as a sample.
"Fraud and lip service," she says of all her experiences with doctors.
Her pills sit neatly on her coffee table among nail clippers, a pair of glasses from the drugstore, tweezers, a razor, a mirror, a toothbrush, a file, baby powder, Tums, candles, cologne, and 11 pens. Having the items close at hand is necessary, as Bowen does not leave the couch very often. But she was delighted when she learned that a reporter was coming over. Bowen is fired up to talk about "that Negro son of a gun" and his "whaddaya call it? Road raging."
Bowen had set out that day for an oil change, an ambitious 25-minute drive to Phil Smith Chevrolet in Lauderhill. She hadn't ventured from the half-mile stretch of Sample Road in front of her home in months, but she had a coupon for a free oil change at the dealership.
The trip into unfamiliar Tamarac territory proved to be confusing for Bowen, as statements she later made to police revealed that she had no idea where she was or what caused the accident.
"Good that he's dead," she says. "He got what was coming to him. Standing there threatening me. He was zoom, zoom. I will hear that the rest of my life. Regular road rage."
Betty's recollection of the accident deviates drastically from the fatality report. Although the report said Bowen was not injured, she now claims her knees were slammed against the dashboard, making it difficult for her to walk. She recalls that Ervin died days after the accident, but he was in fact pronounced dead less than two hours after the crash from trauma to the head, neck, and extremities. Bowen believes Ervin could have stopped but chose to rev his engine and take his chances going around her. Witnesses all disagreed.
"Where did he come from?" Bowen repeatedly asked witnesses at the scene.
Why use the San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist in DUI and DMV Law
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html
List of San Diego DUI Attorney Victories and Driver's Licenses Saved in Past Few Years http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/victory.html
What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a San Diego DUI http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/10days.html
San Diego County DMV and Courts
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/courts.html
San Diego DUI Breath Test Defenses http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/defenses.html
San Diego DUI Blood Test Defenses
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/blood.html
You could take the Free San Diego DUI Survey at http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 20 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. Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller Background and Contact Information http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/about.html
San Diego DUI and DMV Penalties http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/penalty.html
Out of State License/Resident & Driving Record http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/out_of_state.html
Military Base DUI - San Diego County Federal Court - http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/base.html
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - Excellent San Diego DUI information source for San Diego county drunk driving arrest. Rights, Laws, Defenses, Penalties, DMV, Court, Military, DUI Boating, Helpful Tips and other comprehensive information. Vigorous DUI lawyer who can save your license and keep you out of jail.
Call 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI (1-800-843-5293) for a free San Diego DUI consultation http://www.1800thelawdui.com.
For help with your San Diego DUI, visit http://www.SanDiegoDUIHelp.com.
For San Diego DUI news, visit http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/.
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 2:10 PM links to this post
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
San Diego DUI lawyer news: Your Car's Black Box May Be Watching You
It was nearly 11 on a balmy June night in Muttontown, a New York City suburb. Two teenagers raced fast cars down a tree-lined thoroughfare. The 19-year-old, home from freshman year at Tulane University, steered a new Mercedes with a license plate that read 4MRNICE. The 17-year-old, a high school junior, accelerated a two-year-old Corvette. At an intersection, within a second of each other, both cars smashed into a red Jeep, killing a nurse and her fiancé. At the hospital, one of the youths told a detective they were driving 50 m.p.h. to 55 m.p.h.
But unbeknownst to the teens and their families, there was a hidden witness to the race. A palm-size microcomputer, embedded in the Corvette's air-bag system, revealed that the car was traveling 139 m.p.h. The data, downloaded by police after the vehicle was impounded, convinced a grand jury to indict the youths on murder charges, based on "depraved indifference to human life." In the end, they pleaded guilty to manslaughter and assault, and are now serving a three-year prison term. "The minute the prosecutors had the speed from the 'black box,' they upped the charges to murder," says Richard Slade, whose son Blake was driving the Mercedes. "They had what they needed to force a plea down our throats."
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, explains how a San Diego DUI Lawyer may help you.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer Rick Mueller answers common San Diego DUI questions.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, is asked San Diego DUI questions by other attorneys.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, explains how a San Diego DUI Lawyer may help you.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer Rick Mueller answers common San Diego DUI questions.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:47 AM links to this post
Monday, August 28, 2006
San Diego DUI Lawyer news: Court overturns ruling in DUI case
It was a case that prompted the president judge of Commonwealth Court to upbraid some judges for ignoring the constitution in the name of stopping drunk driving.
At issue: If a police officer outside his jurisdiction stops a vehicle and the driver refuses to take an alcohol breath test, can the license of the driver be suspended for a year?
The answer is no, according to a ruling this week by the state Supreme Court.
Police have grounds to make arrests outside of their jurisdiction when they see a "felony, misdemeanor, breach of peace or any other act which presents an immediate clear and present danger to persons or property."
A motorist normally faces an automatic one-year license suspension by the state Department of Transportation if they refuse to take a breath or blood-alcohol test to determine intoxication. But that does not carry over if the stop is done outside the officer's jurisdiction, the high court reaffirmed.
In this case, a Hampden Twp. officer began following Myra J. Martin around Nov. 27, 2003, in the township, but stopped her in Camp Hill. She refused a breath test.
Because of Martin's refusal to take the breath test, PennDOT attempted to suspend her license. Cumberland County Judge Edgar B. Bayley threw out the suspension, but the Commonwealth Court overruled Bayley.
In Tuesday's opinion, Supreme Court Justice Ronald Castille said the Commonwealth Court ruling contradicted almost identical cases and issues decided by the Supreme Court.
"I agree with the Supreme Court that PennDOT was trying desperately to revisit that issue and the Supreme Court said they were not going to do that," said Martin's attorney, John B. Mancke.
The high court ruling also backed what Commonwealth Court President Judge James Gardner Colins said when he disagreed with his court's majority opinion that backed the suspension.
"We do not want a police state," Colins wrote in his dissent. "It seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI."
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, explains how a San Diego DUI Lawyer may help you.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer Rick Mueller answers common San Diego DUI questions.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, is asked San Diego DUI questions by other attorneys.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, explains how a San Diego DUI Lawyer may help you.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer Rick Mueller answers common San Diego DUI questions.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:54 AM links to this post
Sunday, August 27, 2006
San Diego DUI Attorney News: San Diego DUI Probation Dept. may house calls
ESCONDIDO – It was obvious by the beer cans on the front porch that the man who lived there – a man on probation for drunken driving – wasn't expecting a visit from county probation officers.
But on Thursday night, teams of probation and police officers swept through Escondido, knocking on the doors of 30 people on probation for repeat drunken driving offenses to make sure they were clean and sober.
Those who weren't, including the 23-year-old with empties on the porch, were taken back to jail for violating their probation.
The special operation marked the official launch of a new countywide program designed to prevent repeat drunken-driving offenders from doing it again.
Statistics show that repeat offenders are likely to keep re-offending, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles.
“These are the people that say they just went down the street to get cigarettes and maybe a couple more beers, and there you have it, someone is injured or killed,” said county Probation Officer Gonzalo Mendez.
Mendez, a probation officer for 12 years, has experienced the tragic effects of drunken driving on a personal level.
In 2002, his 30-year-old brother, Carlos, was killed by a drunken driver in Mexico.
And in March, a close relative was killed by a drunken driver in Clairemont. Mendez later learned that the driver had a previous drunken-driving record.
Mendez supervises the eight-officer unit in charge of the new program, which was created through a two-year, $1.1 million state grant presented to the county last month.
With the new funds, Mendez is able to double his team and throw more resources at surprise enforcement details such as the one Thursday night.
The unit tracks 400 to 500 people throughout the county who have been convicted of DUI at least twice, making sure they are attending recovery classes and are abstaining completely from alcohol. It becomes a felony when someone is convicted of drunken driving a fourth time.
On Thursday night, the unit, with help from Escondido police officers, searched 20 homes for alcohol. Offenders who were home were given Breathalyzer tests.
Three were arrested; about 10 on the list weren't home.
One man who was home was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing.
No alcohol was found in his system or his house. He proudly told the officers that he was 864 days sober and attending an Alcoholics Anonymous camping trip soon.
“That's really satisfying that people are taking their probation seriously,” Mendez said. “It felt good uncuffing people and saying, 'Keep up the sobriety, keep up the good work.' ”
Why use the San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist in DUI and DMV Law
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html
List of San Diego DUI Attorney Victories and Driver's Licenses Saved in Past Few Years http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/victory.html
What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a San Diego DUI http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/10days.html
San Diego County DMV and Courts
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/courts.html
San Diego DUI Breath Test Defenses http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/defenses.html
San Diego DUI Blood Test Defenses
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/blood.html
You could take the Free San Diego DUI Survey at http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 20 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. Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller Background and Contact Information http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/about.html
San Diego DUI and DMV Penalties http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/penalty.html
Out of State License/Resident & Driving Record http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/out_of_state.html
Military Base DUI - San Diego County Federal Court - http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/base.html
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - Excellent San Diego DUI information source for San Diego county drunk driving arrest. Rights, Laws, Defenses, Penalties, DMV, Court, Military, DUI Boating, Helpful Tips and other comprehensive information. Vigorous DUI lawyer who can save your license and keep you out of jail.
Call 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI (1-800-843-5293) for a free San Diego DUI consultation http://www.1800thelawdui.com.
For help with your San Diego DUI, visit http://www.SanDiegoDUIHelp.com.
For San Diego DUI news, visit http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/.
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:33 AM links to this post
Saturday, August 26, 2006
San Diego DUI – Beer executive Pete Coors pleaded guilty Friday to driving while impaired, a lesser charge than the DUI count filed against Mr. Coors
GOLDEN, Colo. – Beer executive Pete Coors pleaded guilty Friday to driving while impaired, a lesser charge than the DUI count filed against him after his May arrest, and was sentenced to 24 hours of community service.
The judge suspended a $200 fine, but ordered Coors to participate on a panel sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and to go through alcohol education courses. Coors' driver's license also was suspended for three months from the date of his arrest, and he must also pay $495 in court costs and fees.
District attorney's spokeswoman Pam Russell said it was typical to dismiss the drunken driving charge for the lesser charge when defendants, like Coors, have no previous arrests.
The Denver Post reported that Coors entered the plea against the advice of his attorney because he thought the arrest had been an embarrassment to him and his company.
Coors, 59, vice chairman and a director of Molson Coors Brewing Co., was pulled over by a state trooper May 28 after he left a friend's wedding celebration.
Company spokeswoman Kabira Hatland has said Coors rolled through a stop sign a block from his Golden home and was stopped by the officer in his driveway. She said his blood-alcohol content after a breath test was 0.088 percent, above the 0.08 percent level at which a motorist is considered to be driving under the influence.
Coors often appears in television ads for the company and ran for the U.S. Senate as a Republican in 2004. He issued a statement last month apologizing for not following his own advice to drink responsibly.
San Diego DUI? Immediate help at http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 6:46 AM links to this post
Friday, August 25, 2006
Woman in DUI hit-run sentenced to four months
SAN DIEGO – A woman who drove drunk and seriously injured a pedestrian in an Adams Avenue crosswalk, then fled the scene, was sentenced Wednesday to four years and four months in state prison.
Jessica Valenzuela, 28, pleaded guilty July 13 to driving under the influence of alcohol causing great bodily injury and hit-and-run.
Advertisement
Valenzuela hit Joseph Thomas Wilson with her car on May 10, breaking both of Wilson's legs.
Witness Kristine Pandes testified at a May 25 preliminary hearing that she heard screeching tires about 7:30 p.m. just before Valenzuela's car hit the victim “pretty much head-on.”
Witness Cody Chadwick testified that he saw Valenzuela make a “really wide” right turn as she exited northbound Interstate 805 at Adams Avenue.
Chadwick said the defendant's green Honda Civic was going about 25 to 30 mph when it struck Wilson, who was walking in the crosswalk.
Valenzuela stopped for two or three seconds, then drove off, Chadwick testified.
Chadwick said he followed the suspect's car and, with the help of another witness, trapped Valenzuela's car on a nearby street.
San Diego police Officer James Zirpolo said Valenzuela told him she had downed four or five shots of Jagermeister, a liqueur, at a downtown bar between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m.
Valenzuela's blood-alcohol level was measured at .17 percent after the accident, more than twice the legal limit, prosecutors said.
Zirpolo said Valenzuela was in no condition to drive a car safely.
Defense attorney Lei-Chala Wilson said Valenzuela became scared and fled after her car struck the victim.
Valenzuela was on probation for a petty theft conviction at the time of the collision, prosecutors said.
http://www.sandiegodui.com
http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com
http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 2:36 PM links to this post
Teen pleads guilty to fatal San Diego DUI
August 23, 2006
SAN DIEGO – An 18-year-old driver whose blood-alcohol level was nearly three times the legal limit when he ran over and killed a USD law student in Pacific Beach pleaded guilty Wednesday to felony charges.
Daniel Scott Hall spoke softly and appeared somber as he pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and hit-and-run resulting in death.
He faces anywhere from probation to 11 years in state prison when sentenced Nov. 6 by Superior Court Judge George “Woody” Clarke.
Hall swerved to miss a row of cars near the intersection of Garnet and Haines Street and struck 25-year-old Christopher McCallister just before midnight on June 24, according to prosecutor Makenzie Harvey.
She said the victim was crossing the street with two roommates when he was hit almost head-on and thrown into the windshield of Hall's Toyota Celica.
McCallister was pronounced dead at the scene.
“Chris was an extraordinary human being with a bright and exciting future,” his mother said outside court. “He had a million friends. This young man touched many lives.”
McCallister's father, Chris, said he and his wife, who live in Albuquerque, N.M., had “25 wonderful years with him.”
Gerri McCallister said more than 900 people showed up at a memorial service for her son in Albuquerque, and another 500 attended a service in San Diego.
Classmates want to have another memorial service for him, according to his mother, who said the recently established Chris McCallister Scholarship Fund already contains $7,000.
She said Hall made the decision to drink and drive, and should receive the maximum sentence possible.
Shaun Schmidt, who was among those wearing a Mothers Against Drunk Driving red bracelet on his wrist in memory of his friend, said the victim “was just an outstanding individual.”
Kellie Matijasevic, who lives in Dallas, said seeing Hall plead guilty to killing her brother brought back the pain. “I miss his tremendously,” she said.
McCallister's roommates made it safely across the street and he was hit, but Hall narrowly missed one of them, Harvey said.
A witness noticed a car with a smashed windshield, saw the accident scene and called 911, the prosecutor said.
Officers stopped Hall's car 10 minutes later at Interstate 5 and Sea World Drive and took him into custody.
The defendant's blood-alcohol level was .23 percent after the accident, according to Harvey. The legal limit is .08.
Complete San Diego DUI Lawyer information provided by San Diego County DUI Law Center's Drunk Driving Attorney for those accused of a San Diego California DUI.
Worry-free San Diego DUI help for San Diego DUI court and San Diego DMV. Help to save your license.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego DUI & DMV Defense Attorney with over 22 years of experience. Known as the San Diego DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.
Simply complete Free Evaluation at http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com/survey.html for your best San Diego DUI defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege, as has been done for many good people who necessarily become Clients.
http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com.
http://www.sandiegodui.com
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 9:28 AM links to this post
Thursday, August 24, 2006
San Diego DUI News: 1 in 7 sober drivers on the road suffers from diabetes
Diabetics commonly experience hypoglycemia (low blood sugar levels). And what are the symptoms? Slow and slurred speech, poor balance, impaired motor control, staggering, drowsiness, flushed face, disorientation -- in other words, the classic symptoms of alcohol intoxication. This individual will look and act like a drunk driver to the officer, and will certainly fail any DUI "field sobriety tests." As one expert has observed, "Hypoglycemia [abnormally low levels of blood glucose) is frequently seen in connection with driving error on this nation's roads and highways...Even more frequent are unjustified Dues or Dais, stemming from hypoglycemic symptoms that can closely mimic those of a drunk driver." From "Hypoglycemia: Driving Under the Influence" in 8(1) Medical and Toxicological Information Review Sept. 2003.
Canadian scientists have reported that "approximately 200 compounds have been detected in the human breath." Manolis, The Diagnostic Potential of Breath Analysis, 29(1) Clinical Chemistry 5 (1983).
This study confirmed the presence of acetone on the breath in diabetics and in persons on a diet "associated with a weight reduction of about one-half pound per week." Id. at 9. Another study has confirmed that diabetics may give false indications of intoxication. In Brick, Diabetes, Breath Acetone and Breathalyzer Accuracy: A Case Study, 9(1) Alcohol, Drugs and Driving (1993), a researcher found that expired ketones in the breath of an untreated diabetic can contribute to erroneously high breath-alcohol readings. Further, the acetone on the breath from ketoacidosis will result in an odor of alcohol. Finally, behavioral patterns of a diabetic whose blood-sugar level has dropped will include slurred speech, slow gait, impaired motor control, fumbling hand movements, and mental confusion--all symptomatic of intoxication.
Acetone may also be found on the breath of perfectly normal, healthy individuals. Yet, acetone is one of the compounds that will be detected on many breath analyzing instruments as ethanol. In the Intoxilyzer, for example, it is detected because acetone absorbs infrared energy in the 3.38 to 3.40 micron range--the same range where ethanol is found. Therefore, if acetone were introduced into the Intoxilyzer, the machine would simply register the presence of alcohol despite its absence. If an individual had 525 micrograms per liter of acetone in the breath, he would register a blood-alcohol level of . 02 to .03 percent. Thus, if an individual with a true blood-alcohol level of .08 percent had that amount of acetone, the Intoxilyzer would register in the area of.l0 to .11 percent.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has published a report entitled The Likelihood of Acetone Interference in Breath Alcohol Measurement (DOT HS--806-922). The report basically summarizes scientific literature on the subject, concluding that normal individuals have insignificant levels of acetone on their breath. The data indicated, however, that dieters can have higher levels and that diabetics not in control of their blood-sugar had levels hundreds or even thousands of times higher than normal
a study confirming the effects of acetone in diabetics can be found in Mormann, Olsen, Sakshaug, and Morland, Measurement of Ethanol by Alkomat Breath Analyzer; Chemical Specificity and the Influence of Lung Function, Breath Technique and Environmental Temperature, 25 Blutalkohol 153 (1988). Diabetic subjects in that study also were found to have acetone levels sufficient to produce breath-alcohol readings of .06 percent.
Breath testing machines, such as the Intoxilyzer 5000, suffer from a little-known design defect: they do not actually measure alcohol! Rather, they use infrared beams of light which are absorbed by any chemical compound (including ethyl alcohol) in the breath which contains the "methyl group" in its molecular structure; the more absorption, the higher the blood-alcohol reading. The machine is programmed to assume that the compound is "probably" alcohol. Unfortunately, thousands of compounds containing the methyl group can register as alcohol. One of these is "acetone". And a well-documented by-product of hypoglycemia is a state called "ketoacidosis", which causes the production of acetones in the breath. In other words, the Breathalyzer will read significant levels of alcohol on a diabetic's breath where there may be little or none. See, for example, Brick, "Diabetes, Breath Acetone and Breathalyzer Accuracy: A Case Study", 9(1) Alcohol, Drugs and Driving (1993).
Fact: roughly one in seven sober drivers on the road suffers from diabetes.
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com
http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:51 AM links to this post
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
San Diego DUI news: License suspensions being extended in certain cases to 6 months and 9 months for hi-BAC drivers
BILL NUMBER: SB 1756 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 17, 2006
PASSED THE SENATE APRIL 27, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 26, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 27, 2006
INTRODUCED BY Senator Migden
FEBRUARY 24, 2006
An act to amend Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, to
amend Sections 13352, 13352.4, 23536, and 23538 of, and to add
Section 13352.1 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1756, Migden Vehicles: driving under the influence: driver's
license suspension: restricted driver's license.
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to
immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a
motor vehicle upon receipt of an abstract of the record of a court
showing that the person has been convicted of specified provisions
prohibiting driving under the influence (DUI). If the person has been
convicted of a first offense, without causing bodily injury to
another, existing law prohibits the reinstatement of that privilege
for a period of 6 months and until the person complies with certain
conditions. In a county where the board of supervisors has approved,
and the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has licensed
one or more driving-under-the-influence programs, as defined,
existing law requires a court that places a person on probation who
is a first time offender whose blood alcohol concentration was 0.20%
or more, by weight, or who refused to take a chemical test, and who
is punished under a specified provision of law, to refer the person
to participate for at least 9 months in a licensed
driving-under-the-influence program.
This bill would increase the period of driver's license
suspension, for a person convicted of a first DUI offense, without
causing bodily injury to another, whose blood alcohol concentration
was 0.20% or more, by weight, or who refused to take a chemical test,
from 6 months to 10 months, if the person is placed on probation, as
specified.
(2) This bill would make conforming changes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
11836. (a) The department shall have the sole authority to issue,
deny, suspend, or revoke the license of a
driving-under-the-influence program. As used in this chapter,
"program" means any firm, partnership, association, corporation,
local governmental entity, agency, or place that has been initially
recommended by the county board of supervisors, subject to any
limitation imposed pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d), and that is
subsequently licensed by the department to provide alcohol or drug
recovery services in that county to any of the following:
(1) A person whose license to drive has been administratively
suspended or revoked for, or who is convicted of, a violation of
Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and admitted to a program
pursuant to Section 13352, 13352.1, 23538, 23542, 23548, 23552,
23556, 23562, or 23568 of the Vehicle Code.
(2) A person who is convicted of a violation of subdivision (b),
(c), (d), or (e) of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code,
or of Section 655.4 of that code, and admitted to the program
pursuant to Section 668 of that code.
(3) A person who has pled guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of
a violation of Section 23103 of the Vehicle Code, under the
conditions set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 23103.5 of the
Vehicle Code, and who has been admitted to the program under
subdivision (e) of Section 23103.5 of the Vehicle Code.
(4) A person whose license has been suspended, revoked, or delayed
due to a violation of Section 23140, and who has been admitted to a
program under Article 2 (commencing with Section 23502) of Chapter 1
of Division 11.5 of the Vehicle Code.
(b) If a firm, partnership, corporation, association, local
government entity, agency, or place has, or is applying for, more
than one license, the department shall treat each licensed program,
or each program seeking licensure, as belonging to a separate firm,
partnership, corporation, association, local government entity,
agency, or place for the purposes of this chapter.
(c) For purposes of providing recommendations to the department
pursuant to subdivision (a), a county board of supervisors may limit
its recommendations to those programs that provide services for
persons convicted of a first driving-under-the-influence offense, or
services to those persons convicted of a second or subsequent
driving-under-the-influence offense, or both services. If a county
board of supervisors fails to provide recommendations, the department
shall determine the program or programs to be licensed in that
county.
(d) After determining a need, a county board of supervisors may
also place one or more limitations on the services to be provided by
a driving-under-the-influence program or the area the program may
operate within the county, when it initially recommends a program to
the department pursuant to subdivision (a).
(1) For purposes of this subdivision, a board of supervisors may
restrict a program for those convicted of a first
driving-under-the-influence offense to providing only a three-month
program, or may restrict a program to those convicted of a second or
subsequent driving-under-the-influence offense to providing only an
18-month program, as a condition of its recommendation.
(2) A board of supervisors may not place any restrictions on a
program that would violate any statute or regulation.
(3) When recommending a program, if a board of supervisors fails
to place any limitation on a program pursuant to this subdivision,
the department may license that program to provide any
driving-under-the-influence program services that are allowed by law
within that county.
(4) This subdivision is intended to apply only to the initial
recommendation to the department for licensure of a program by the
county. It is not intended to affect any license that has been
previously issued by the department or the renewal of any license for
a driving-under-the-influence program. In counties where a contract
or other written agreement is currently in effect between the county
and a licensed driving-under-the-influence program operating in that
county, this subdivision is not intended to alter the terms of that
relationship or the renewal of that relationship.
SEC. 2. Section 13352 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13352. (a) The department shall immediately suspend or revoke the
privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of
an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has
been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 or
subdivision (a) of Section 23109, or upon the receipt of a report of
a judge of the juvenile court, a juvenile traffic hearing officer, or
a referee of a juvenile court showing that the person has been found
to have committed a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 or
subdivision (a) of Section 23109. If an offense specified in this
section occurs in a vehicle defined in Section 15210, the suspension
or revocation specified below shall apply to the noncommercial
driving privilege. The commercial driving privilege shall be
disqualified as specified in Sections 15300 to 15302, inclusive. For
the purposes of this section, suspension or revocation shall be as
follows:
(1) Except as required under Section 13352.1 or Section 13352.4,
upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23536, the privilege shall be suspended for
a period of six months.
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)
of Section 23556. If the court, as authorized under paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b) of Section 23646, elects to order a person to enroll,
participate, and complete either program described in paragraph (4)
of subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the department shall require
that program in lieu of the program described in Section 23556. For
the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment, participation, and
completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of
the current violation. Credit may not be given to any program
activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(3) Except as provided in Section 13352.5, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23540, the privilege shall be suspended for two years. The privilege
may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial
responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of
successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code as
described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542. For the purposes of
this paragraph, enrollment, participation, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department
shall advise the person that after completion of 12 months of the
suspension period, which may include credit for a suspension period
served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply
to the department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily provided, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under-the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(ii) Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under-the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code, if available in the county of the person's residence or
employment.
(B) The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to
continue satisfactory participation in the program described in
subparagraph (A).
(C) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(D) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(E) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(F) The person pays all administrative fees or reissue fees and
any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(4) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section
23560, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years.
The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of
financial responsibility, and the person gives proof satisfactory to
the department of successful completion of a
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in subdivision (b)
of Section 23562. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment,
participation, and completion of an approved program shall be
subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be
given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the
current violation. The department shall advise the person that after
the completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which may
include credit for a suspension period served under subdivision (c)
of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the department for a
restricted driver's license, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in that 30-month program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(F) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(5) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23546, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years.
The privilege may not be reinstated until the person files proof of
financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of one of the following programs:
an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 23548, or, if available in the
county of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit
shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which
may include credit for a suspension period served under subdivision
(c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the department for a
restricted driver's license, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23546 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county
of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(6) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section
23550.5 or 23566, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of five
years. The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives
proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of one of the following programs:
an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23568 or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit
shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after the completion of 12 months of the revocation period,
which may include credit for a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the
department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(ii) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is
unavailable in the person's county of residence or employment.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23153
punishable under Section 23566 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(7) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23550 or 23550.5, or Section 23153 punishable under Section 23550.5
the privilege shall be revoked for a period of four years. The
privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of
financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of
successful completion of one of the following programs: an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county
of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit
shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after the completion of 12 months of the revocation period,
which may include credit for a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the
department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23550 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(8) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision (a)
of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (e) of that
section, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of 90 days to
six months, if ordered by the court. The privilege may not be
reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility,
as defined in Section 16430.
(9) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision (a)
of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (f) of that
section, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of six months,
if ordered by the court. The privilege may not be reinstated until
the person gives proof of financial responsibility, as defined in
Section 16430.
(b) For the purpose of paragraphs (2) to (9), inclusive, of
subdivision (a), the finding of the juvenile court judge, the
juvenile hearing officer, or the referee of a juvenile court of a
commission of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 or subdivision
(a) of Section 23109, as specified in subdivision (a) of this
section, is a conviction.
(c) A judge of a juvenile court, juvenile hearing officer, or
referee of a juvenile court shall immediately report the findings
specified in subdivision (a) to the department.
(d) A conviction of an offense in a state, territory, or
possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Canada that, if committed in this
state, would be a violation of Section 23152, is a conviction of
Section 23152 for the purposes of this section, and a conviction of
an offense that, if committed in this state, would be a violation of
Section 23153, is a conviction of Section 23153 for the purposes of
this section. The department shall suspend or revoke the privilege to
operate a motor vehicle pursuant to this section upon receiving
notice of that conviction.
(e) For the purposes of the restriction conditions specified in
paragraphs (3) to (7), inclusive, of subdivision (a), the department
shall terminate the restriction imposed pursuant to this section and
shall suspend or revoke the person's driving privilege upon receipt
of notification from the driving-under-the-influence program that the
person has failed to comply with the program requirements. The
person's driving privilege shall remain suspended or revoked for the
remaining period of the original suspension or revocation imposed
under this section and until all reinstatement requirements described
in this section are met.
(f) For the purposes of this section, completion of a program is
the following:
(1) Satisfactory completion of all program requirements approved
pursuant to program licensure, as evidenced by a certificate of
completion issued, under penalty of perjury, by the licensed program.
(2) Certification, under penalty of perjury, by the director of a
program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code, that the person
has completed a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code.
(g) The holder of a commercial driver's license who was operating
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the time
of a violation that resulted in a suspension or revocation of the
person's noncommercial driving privilege under this section is not
eligible for the restricted driver's license authorized under
paragraphs (3) to (7), inclusive, of subdivision (a).
SEC. 3. Section 13352.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
13352.1. (a) Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 13352 and
except required under Section 13352.4, upon a conviction or finding
of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23536, if
the court refers the person to a program pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (b) of Section 23538, the privilege shall be suspended
for ten months.
(b) The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives
proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538. For the purposes
of this paragraph, enrollment, participation, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit may not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation.
SEC. 4. Section 13352.4 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13352.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the
department shall issue a restricted driver's license to a person
whose driver's license was suspended under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, if the person
meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Submits proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in,
or completion of, a driving-under-the-influence program licensed
pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described
in subdivision (b) of Section 23538.
(2) Submits proof of financial responsibility, as defined in
Section 16430.
(3) Pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any
restriction fee required by the department.
(b) The restriction of the driving privilege shall become
effective when the department receives all of the documents and fees
required under subdivision (a) and shall remain in effect until the
final day of the original suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, or until the
date all reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352 or
Section 13352.1 have been met, whichever date is later, and may
include credit for any suspension period served under subdivision (c)
of Section 13353.3.
(c) The restriction of the driving privilege shall be limited to
the hours necessary for driving to and from the person's place of
employment, driving during the course of employment, and driving to
and from activities required in the driving-under-the-influence
program.
(d) Whenever the driving privilege is restricted under this
section, proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section
16430, shall be maintained for three years. If the person does not
maintain that proof of financial responsibility at any time during
the restriction, the driving privilege shall be suspended until the
proof required under Section 16484 is received by the department.
(e) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation,
and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date
of the current violation. Credit may not be given to a program
activity completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(f) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under
this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352
or Section 13352.1 immediately upon receipt of notification from the
driving-under-the-influence program that the person has failed to
comply with the program requirements. The privilege shall remain
suspended until the final day of the original suspension imposed
under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section
13352.1, or until the date all reinstatement requirements described
in Section 13352 or Section 13352.1 have been met, whichever date is
later.
(g) The holder of a commercial driver's license who was operating
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the time
of a violation that resulted in a suspension or revocation of the
person's noncommercial driving privilege under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1 is not eligible
for the restricted driver's license authorized under this section.
(h) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination, as
authorized under subdivision (d) of Section 23536 or paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a) of Section 23538, to disallow the issuance of a
restricted driver's license, the department may not issue a
restricted driver's license under this section.
SEC. 5. Section 23536 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23536. (a) If a person is convicted of a first violation of
Section 23152, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the
county jail for not less than 96 hours, at least 48 hours of which
shall be continuous, nor more than six months, and by a fine of not
less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390), nor more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000).
(b) The court shall order that a person punished under subdivision
(a), who is to be punished by imprisonment in the county jail, be
imprisoned on days other than days of regular employment of the
person, as determined by the court. If the court determines that 48
hours of continuous imprisonment would interfere with the person's
work schedule, the court shall allow the person to serve the
imprisonment whenever the person is normally scheduled for time off
from work. The court may make this determination based upon a
representation from the defendant's attorney or upon an affidavit or
testimony from the defendant.
(c) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require the person
to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with
Section 13550.
(d) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole,
the court determines that the person punished under this section
would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to
operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed
under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section
13352.1, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's
license required under Section 13352.4.
SEC. 6. Section 23538 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23538. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to person punished
under Section 23536, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600
and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court
shall impose as a condition of probation that the person pay a fine
of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390), but not more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000). The court may also impose, as a
condition of probation, that the person be confined in a county jail
for at least 48 hours, but not more than six months.
(2) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require the person
to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with
Section 13550.
(3) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole,
the court determines that the person punished under this section
would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to
operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed
under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section
13352.1, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's
license required under Section 13352.4.
(b) In any county where the board of supervisors has approved, and
the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has licensed, a
program or programs described in Section 11837.3 of the Health and
Safety Code, the court shall also impose as a condition of probation
that the driver shall enroll and participate in, and successfully
complete a driving-under-the-influence program, licensed pursuant to
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, in the driver's county
of residence or employment, as designated by the court. For the
purposes of this subdivision, enrollment in, participation in, and
completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of
the current violation. Credit may not be given for any program
activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(1) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol
concentration was less than 0.20 percent, by weight, to participate
for at least three months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a
licensed program that consists of at least 30 hours of program
activities, including those education, group counseling, and
individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with
Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(2) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol
concentration was 0.20 percent or more, by weight, or who refused to
take a chemical test, to participate for at least nine months or
longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists
of at least 60 hours of program activities, including those
education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions
described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of
Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing
that the driving privilege shall not be restored until proof
satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a
driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this
code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and
Safety Code has been received in the department's headquarters.
(c) (1) The court shall revoke the person's probation pursuant to
Section 23602, except for good cause shown, for the failure to enroll
in, participate in, or complete a program specified in subdivision
(b).
(2) The court, in establishing reporting requirements, shall
consult with the county alcohol program administrator. The county
alcohol program administrator shall coordinate the reporting
requirements with the department and with the State Department of
Alcohol and Drug Programs. That reporting shall ensure that all
persons who, after being ordered to attend and complete a program,
may be identified for either (A) failure to enroll in, or failure to
successfully complete, the program, or (B) successful completion of
the program as ordered.
BILL NUMBER: SB 1756 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 17, 2006
PASSED THE SENATE APRIL 27, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 26, 2006
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 27, 2006
INTRODUCED BY Senator Migden
FEBRUARY 24, 2006
An act to amend Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, to
amend Sections 13352, 13352.4, 23536, and 23538 of, and to add
Section 13352.1 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1756, Migden Vehicles: driving under the influence: driver's
license suspension: restricted driver's license.
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to
immediately suspend or revoke the privilege of a person to operate a
motor vehicle upon receipt of an abstract of the record of a court
showing that the person has been convicted of specified provisions
prohibiting driving under the influence (DUI). If the person has been
convicted of a first offense, without causing bodily injury to
another, existing law prohibits the reinstatement of that privilege
for a period of 6 months and until the person complies with certain
conditions. In a county where the board of supervisors has approved,
and the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has licensed
one or more driving-under-the-influence programs, as defined,
existing law requires a court that places a person on probation who
is a first time offender whose blood alcohol concentration was 0.20%
or more, by weight, or who refused to take a chemical test, and who
is punished under a specified provision of law, to refer the person
to participate for at least 9 months in a licensed
driving-under-the-influence program.
This bill would increase the period of driver's license
suspension, for a person convicted of a first DUI offense, without
causing bodily injury to another, whose blood alcohol concentration
was 0.20% or more, by weight, or who refused to take a chemical test,
from 6 months to 10 months, if the person is placed on probation, as
specified.
(2) This bill would make conforming changes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
11836. (a) The department shall have the sole authority to issue,
deny, suspend, or revoke the license of a
driving-under-the-influence program. As used in this chapter,
"program" means any firm, partnership, association, corporation,
local governmental entity, agency, or place that has been initially
recommended by the county board of supervisors, subject to any
limitation imposed pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d), and that is
subsequently licensed by the department to provide alcohol or drug
recovery services in that county to any of the following:
(1) A person whose license to drive has been administratively
suspended or revoked for, or who is convicted of, a violation of
Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and admitted to a program
pursuant to Section 13352, 13352.1, 23538, 23542, 23548, 23552,
23556, 23562, or 23568 of the Vehicle Code.
(2) A person who is convicted of a violation of subdivision (b),
(c), (d), or (e) of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code,
or of Section 655.4 of that code, and admitted to the program
pursuant to Section 668 of that code.
(3) A person who has pled guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of
a violation of Section 23103 of the Vehicle Code, under the
conditions set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 23103.5 of the
Vehicle Code, and who has been admitted to the program under
subdivision (e) of Section 23103.5 of the Vehicle Code.
(4) A person whose license has been suspended, revoked, or delayed
due to a violation of Section 23140, and who has been admitted to a
program under Article 2 (commencing with Section 23502) of Chapter 1
of Division 11.5 of the Vehicle Code.
(b) If a firm, partnership, corporation, association, local
government entity, agency, or place has, or is applying for, more
than one license, the department shall treat each licensed program,
or each program seeking licensure, as belonging to a separate firm,
partnership, corporation, association, local government entity,
agency, or place for the purposes of this chapter.
(c) For purposes of providing recommendations to the department
pursuant to subdivision (a), a county board of supervisors may limit
its recommendations to those programs that provide services for
persons convicted of a first driving-under-the-influence offense, or
services to those persons convicted of a second or subsequent
driving-under-the-influence offense, or both services. If a county
board of supervisors fails to provide recommendations, the department
shall determine the program or programs to be licensed in that
county.
(d) After determining a need, a county board of supervisors may
also place one or more limitations on the services to be provided by
a driving-under-the-influence program or the area the program may
operate within the county, when it initially recommends a program to
the department pursuant to subdivision (a).
(1) For purposes of this subdivision, a board of supervisors may
restrict a program for those convicted of a first
driving-under-the-influence offense to providing only a three-month
program, or may restrict a program to those convicted of a second or
subsequent driving-under-the-influence offense to providing only an
18-month program, as a condition of its recommendation.
(2) A board of supervisors may not place any restrictions on a
program that would violate any statute or regulation.
(3) When recommending a program, if a board of supervisors fails
to place any limitation on a program pursuant to this subdivision,
the department may license that program to provide any
driving-under-the-influence program services that are allowed by law
within that county.
(4) This subdivision is intended to apply only to the initial
recommendation to the department for licensure of a program by the
county. It is not intended to affect any license that has been
previously issued by the department or the renewal of any license for
a driving-under-the-influence program. In counties where a contract
or other written agreement is currently in effect between the county
and a licensed driving-under-the-influence program operating in that
county, this subdivision is not intended to alter the terms of that
relationship or the renewal of that relationship.
SEC. 2. Section 13352 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13352. (a) The department shall immediately suspend or revoke the
privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of
an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has
been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 or
subdivision (a) of Section 23109, or upon the receipt of a report of
a judge of the juvenile court, a juvenile traffic hearing officer, or
a referee of a juvenile court showing that the person has been found
to have committed a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 or
subdivision (a) of Section 23109. If an offense specified in this
section occurs in a vehicle defined in Section 15210, the suspension
or revocation specified below shall apply to the noncommercial
driving privilege. The commercial driving privilege shall be
disqualified as specified in Sections 15300 to 15302, inclusive. For
the purposes of this section, suspension or revocation shall be as
follows:
(1) Except as required under Section 13352.1 or Section 13352.4,
upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23536, the privilege shall be suspended for
a period of six months.
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)
of Section 23556. If the court, as authorized under paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b) of Section 23646, elects to order a person to enroll,
participate, and complete either program described in paragraph (4)
of subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the department shall require
that program in lieu of the program described in Section 23556. For
the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment, participation, and
completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of
the current violation. Credit may not be given to any program
activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(3) Except as provided in Section 13352.5, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23540, the privilege shall be suspended for two years. The privilege
may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial
responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of
successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code as
described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542. For the purposes of
this paragraph, enrollment, participation, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department
shall advise the person that after completion of 12 months of the
suspension period, which may include credit for a suspension period
served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply
to the department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily provided, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under-the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(ii) Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under-the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code, if available in the county of the person's residence or
employment.
(B) The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to
continue satisfactory participation in the program described in
subparagraph (A).
(C) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(D) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(E) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(F) The person pays all administrative fees or reissue fees and
any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(4) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section
23560, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years.
The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of
financial responsibility, and the person gives proof satisfactory to
the department of successful completion of a
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in subdivision (b)
of Section 23562. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment,
participation, and completion of an approved program shall be
subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit shall not be
given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the
current violation. The department shall advise the person that after
the completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which may
include credit for a suspension period served under subdivision (c)
of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the department for a
restricted driver's license, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in that 30-month program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(F) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(5) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23546, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years.
The privilege may not be reinstated until the person files proof of
financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of one of the following programs:
an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 23548, or, if available in the
county of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit
shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which
may include credit for a suspension period served under subdivision
(c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the department for a
restricted driver's license, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23546 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county
of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(6) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section
23550.5 or 23566, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of five
years. The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives
proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of one of the following programs:
an 18-month driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23568 or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit
shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after the completion of 12 months of the revocation period,
which may include credit for a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the
department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(ii) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is
unavailable in the person's county of residence or employment.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23153
punishable under Section 23566 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(7) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23550 or 23550.5, or Section 23153 punishable under Section 23550.5
the privilege shall be revoked for a period of four years. The
privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of
financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of
successful completion of one of the following programs: an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county
of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment, participation, and completion of an approved program
shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit
shall not be given to any program activities completed prior to the
date of the current violation. The department shall advise the person
that after the completion of 12 months of the revocation period,
which may include credit for a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the
department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under-the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23550 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under-the-influence program or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(8) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision (a)
of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (e) of that
section, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of 90 days to
six months, if ordered by the court. The privilege may not be
reinstated until the person gives proof of financial responsibility,
as defined in Section 16430.
(9) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision (a)
of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (f) of that
section, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of six months,
if ordered by the court. The privilege may not be reinstated until
the person gives proof of financial responsibility, as defined in
Section 16430.
(b) For the purpose of paragraphs (2) to (9), inclusive, of
subdivision (a), the finding of the juvenile court judge, the
juvenile hearing officer, or the referee of a juvenile court of a
commission of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 or subdivision
(a) of Section 23109, as specified in subdivision (a) of this
section, is a conviction.
(c) A judge of a juvenile court, juvenile hearing officer, or
referee of a juvenile court shall immediately report the findings
specified in subdivision (a) to the department.
(d) A conviction of an offense in a state, territory, or
possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Canada that, if committed in this
state, would be a violation of Section 23152, is a conviction of
Section 23152 for the purposes of this section, and a conviction of
an offense that, if committed in this state, would be a violation of
Section 23153, is a conviction of Section 23153 for the purposes of
this section. The department shall suspend or revoke the privilege to
operate a motor vehicle pursuant to this section upon receiving
notice of that conviction.
(e) For the purposes of the restriction conditions specified in
paragraphs (3) to (7), inclusive, of subdivision (a), the department
shall terminate the restriction imposed pursuant to this section and
shall suspend or revoke the person's driving privilege upon receipt
of notification from the driving-under-the-influence program that the
person has failed to comply with the program requirements. The
person's driving privilege shall remain suspended or revoked for the
remaining period of the original suspension or revocation imposed
under this section and until all reinstatement requirements described
in this section are met.
(f) For the purposes of this section, completion of a program is
the following:
(1) Satisfactory completion of all program requirements approved
pursuant to program licensure, as evidenced by a certificate of
completion issued, under penalty of perjury, by the licensed program.
(2) Certification, under penalty of perjury, by the director of a
program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code, that the person
has completed a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code.
(g) The holder of a commercial driver's license who was operating
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the time
of a violation that resulted in a suspension or revocation of the
person's noncommercial driving privilege under this section is not
eligible for the restricted driver's license authorized under
paragraphs (3) to (7), inclusive, of subdivision (a).
SEC. 3. Section 13352.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
13352.1. (a) Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 13352 and
except required under Section 13352.4, upon a conviction or finding
of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section 23536, if
the court refers the person to a program pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (b) of Section 23538, the privilege shall be suspended
for ten months.
(b) The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives
proof of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538. For the purposes
of this paragraph, enrollment, participation, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit may not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation.
SEC. 4. Section 13352.4 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13352.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the
department shall issue a restricted driver's license to a person
whose driver's license was suspended under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, if the person
meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Submits proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in,
or completion of, a driving-under-the-influence program licensed
pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described
in subdivision (b) of Section 23538.
(2) Submits proof of financial responsibility, as defined in
Section 16430.
(3) Pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees and any
restriction fee required by the department.
(b) The restriction of the driving privilege shall become
effective when the department receives all of the documents and fees
required under subdivision (a) and shall remain in effect until the
final day of the original suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, or until the
date all reinstatement requirements described in Section 13352 or
Section 13352.1 have been met, whichever date is later, and may
include credit for any suspension period served under subdivision (c)
of Section 13353.3.
(c) The restriction of the driving privilege shall be limited to
the hours necessary for driving to and from the person's place of
employment, driving during the course of employment, and driving to
and from activities required in the driving-under-the-influence
program.
(d) Whenever the driving privilege is restricted under this
section, proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section
16430, shall be maintained for three years. If the person does not
maintain that proof of financial responsibility at any time during
the restriction, the driving privilege shall be suspended until the
proof required under Section 16484 is received by the department.
(e) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation,
and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date
of the current violation. Credit may not be given to a program
activity completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(f) The department shall terminate the restriction issued under
this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352
or Section 13352.1 immediately upon receipt of notification from the
driving-under-the-influence program that the person has failed to
comply with the program requirements. The privilege shall remain
suspended until the final day of the original suspension imposed
under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section
13352.1, or until the date all reinstatement requirements described
in Section 13352 or Section 13352.1 have been met, whichever date is
later.
(g) The holder of a commercial driver's license who was operating
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at the time
of a violation that resulted in a suspension or revocation of the
person's noncommercial driving privilege under paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1 is not eligible
for the restricted driver's license authorized under this section.
(h) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination, as
authorized under subdivision (d) of Section 23536 or paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a) of Section 23538, to disallow the issuance of a
restricted driver's license, the department may not issue a
restricted driver's license under this section.
SEC. 5. Section 23536 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23536. (a) If a person is convicted of a first violation of
Section 23152, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the
county jail for not less than 96 hours, at least 48 hours of which
shall be continuous, nor more than six months, and by a fine of not
less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390), nor more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000).
(b) The court shall order that a person punished under subdivision
(a), who is to be punished by imprisonment in the county jail, be
imprisoned on days other than days of regular employment of the
person, as determined by the court. If the court determines that 48
hours of continuous imprisonment would interfere with the person's
work schedule, the court shall allow the person to serve the
imprisonment whenever the person is normally scheduled for time off
from work. The court may make this determination based upon a
representation from the defendant's attorney or upon an affidavit or
testimony from the defendant.
(c) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require the person
to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with
Section 13550.
(d) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole,
the court determines that the person punished under this section
would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to
operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed
under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section
13352.1, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's
license required under Section 13352.4.
SEC. 6. Section 23538 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23538. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to person punished
under Section 23536, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600
and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court
shall impose as a condition of probation that the person pay a fine
of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390), but not more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000). The court may also impose, as a
condition of probation, that the person be confined in a county jail
for at least 48 hours, but not more than six months.
(2) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require the person
to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with
Section 13550.
(3) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole,
the court determines that the person punished under this section
would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to
operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed
under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section
13352.1, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's
license required under Section 13352.4.
(b) In any county where the board of supervisors has approved, and
the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has licensed, a
program or programs described in Section 11837.3 of the Health and
Safety Code, the court shall also impose as a condition of probation
that the driver shall enroll and participate in, and successfully
complete a driving-under-the-influence program, licensed pursuant to
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, in the driver's county
of residence or employment, as designated by the court. For the
purposes of this subdivision, enrollment in, participation in, and
completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of
the current violation. Credit may not be given for any program
activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(1) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol
concentration was less than 0.20 percent, by weight, to participate
for at least three months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a
licensed program that consists of at least 30 hours of program
activities, including those education, group counseling, and
individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with
Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(2) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol
concentration was 0.20 percent or more, by weight, or who refused to
take a chemical test, to participate for at least nine months or
longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists
of at least 60 hours of program activities, including those
education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions
described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of
Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing
that the driving privilege shall not be restored until proof
satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a
driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this
code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and
Safety Code has been received in the department's headquarters.
(c) (1) The court shall revoke the person's probation pursuant to
Section 23602, except for good cause shown, for the failure to enroll
in, participate in, or complete a program specified in subdivision
(b).
(2) The court, in establishing reporting requirements, shall
consult with the county alcohol program administrator. The county
alcohol program administrator shall coordinate the reporting
requirements with the department and with the State Department of
Alcohol and Drug Programs. That reporting shall ensure that all
persons who, after being ordered to attend and complete a program,
may be identified for either (A) failure to enroll in, or failure to
successfully complete, the program, or (B) successful completion of
the program as ordered.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUILawyer.com
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, is asked San Diego DUI questions by other attorneys.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 3:50 PM links to this post
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
DA Should Turn Over Exculpatory Evidence to Defense - San Diego DUI Attorney News
SAN JOSE — The Santa Clara county district attorney's office may no longer be able to file Brady motions with the county's superior court, according to a preliminary judicial order.
For roughly the past four years, prosecutors have been filing motions asking the court to review "confidential possible Brady material" and issue advisory opinions about whether the DA was required to release the discovery to the defense.
Apparently, several judges are refusing to hear these motions, complaining that the DA alone should make a determination on what constitutes Brady material, which encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Such evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different," the court ruled.
State law requires prosecutors to turn over evidence of police officer misconduct to the defense if the officer is a material witness in a criminal trial. Failure to do so would be a Brady violation.
"They should be opening up their files and giving us all the information — period," said Public Defender Mary Greenwood. "Law enforcement wants their people treated differently. … [That's] not appropriate."
And so James Emerson, the supervising judge of the court's criminal unit, told the DA in May that he is considering issuing a standing order banning prosecutors from filing Brady motions.
"The people's assertion that the superior court must make the Brady determination is a totally unprecedented request," Emerson wrote in his May order, inviting the DA, public defender and San Jose city attorney to weigh in on the issue.
Prosecutors are in the best position to determine whether information is Brady material, Emerson argued.
"There is no authority allowing the prosecutor to abdicate this duty to the court," Emerson wrote.
In response papers filed last week, DA George Kennedy points out that his office rarely turns to the court for a second opinion and asked Emerson not to ban his office from seeking help when deputies feel they need it.
"Generally the district attorney now resolves these legal issues without judicial intervention," Kennedy wrote. "However, when individual rights conflict, litigants appropriately turn to the court for judicial resolution."
The San Jose city attorney's office agrees with Kennedy that the court should hear Brady motions.
"By prohibiting the DA from filing these Brady motions, the court will force the city to take proactive measures to prevent needless embarrassment, harassment and unwarranted invasions of privacy of its officers," City Attorney J. Richard "Rick" Doyle wrote in a brief filed last week. "If the city disagrees with the DA about whether or not documents are Brady material, the city will be forced to seek relief from the court asking the court to prohibit the disclosure of such privileged information and asking the court to determine that the information the DA seeks to release is not Brady material."
Public Defender Greenwood said "criminal judges should not be obligated to be involved in this."
"Our basic position is the district attorney has an obligation to turn over this Brady material about peace officers," Greenwood said.
Until 2001, the law said police personnel records were confidential and couldn't be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding, except by discovery. The law still states these records are confidential, but the Penal Code now reads that they will not be disclosed "by the department or agency that employs the peace officer" for any court proceeding except by discovery.
"Now because of that limiting language, if some other source has the information, it can be disclosed," Emerson states in his order.
Karyn Sinunu, a candidate for DA who left her chief assistant DA post last month to concentrate full time on her campaign, acknowledges the DA has struggled with the Brady process for "a long time."
"This is a very difficult and sensitive issue, and I would welcome some direction from the court," Sinunu said in a phone interview Monday. "We have an obligation to give [Brady material, but] it's unsettled how to do it."
Dolores Carr, currently the frontrunner in the DA race, said Monday she hadn't seen Emerson's order and didn't feel comfortable commenting about the Brady issue.
Emerson seems quite skeptical toward the DA's position.
"Part of the problem with the motions filed by the people is that they are not following the logical analytical sequence of first making the Brady determination before trying to assert that other rights and privileges should be balanced against it," Judge Emerson wrote in his May brief.
Emerson doesn't think he will hold a hearing to address the issue, he said in his order, and plans to alert all interested parties when he makes a decision.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUILawyer.com
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, is asked San Diego DUI questions by other attorneys.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 10:41 PM links to this post
San Diego DUI News: Excuplatory evidence should be handed over by Santa Clara DA
SAN JOSE — The Santa Clara county district attorney's office may no longer be able to file Brady motions with the county's superior court, according to a preliminary judicial order.
For roughly the past four years, prosecutors have been filing motions asking the court to review "confidential possible Brady material" and issue advisory opinions about whether the DA was required to release the discovery to the defense.
Apparently, several judges are refusing to hear these motions, complaining that the DA alone should make a determination on what constitutes Brady material, which encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Such evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different," the court ruled.
State law requires prosecutors to turn over evidence of police officer misconduct to the defense if the officer is a material witness in a criminal trial. Failure to do so would be a Brady violation.
"They should be opening up their files and giving us all the information — period," said Public Defender Mary Greenwood. "Law enforcement wants their people treated differently. … [That's] not appropriate."
And so James Emerson, the supervising judge of the court's criminal unit, told the DA in May that he is considering issuing a standing order banning prosecutors from filing Brady motions.
"The people's assertion that the superior court must make the Brady determination is a totally unprecedented request," Emerson wrote in his May order, inviting the DA, public defender and San Jose city attorney to weigh in on the issue.
Prosecutors are in the best position to determine whether information is Brady material, Emerson argued.
"There is no authority allowing the prosecutor to abdicate this duty to the court," Emerson wrote.
In response papers filed last week, DA George Kennedy points out that his office rarely turns to the court for a second opinion and asked Emerson not to ban his office from seeking help when deputies feel they need it.
"Generally the district attorney now resolves these legal issues without judicial intervention," Kennedy wrote. "However, when individual rights conflict, litigants appropriately turn to the court for judicial resolution."
The San Jose city attorney's office agrees with Kennedy that the court should hear Brady motions.
"By prohibiting the DA from filing these Brady motions, the court will force the city to take proactive measures to prevent needless embarrassment, harassment and unwarranted invasions of privacy of its officers," City Attorney J. Richard "Rick" Doyle wrote in a brief filed last week. "If the city disagrees with the DA about whether or not documents are Brady material, the city will be forced to seek relief from the court asking the court to prohibit the disclosure of such privileged information and asking the court to determine that the information the DA seeks to release is not Brady material."
Public Defender Greenwood said "criminal judges should not be obligated to be involved in this."
"Our basic position is the district attorney has an obligation to turn over this Brady material about peace officers," Greenwood said.
Until 2001, the law said police personnel records were confidential and couldn't be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding, except by discovery. The law still states these records are confidential, but the Penal Code now reads that they will not be disclosed "by the department or agency that employs the peace officer" for any court proceeding except by discovery.
"Now because of that limiting language, if some other source has the information, it can be disclosed," Emerson states in his order.
Karyn Sinunu, a candidate for DA who left her chief assistant DA post last month to concentrate full time on her campaign, acknowledges the DA has struggled with the Brady process for "a long time."
"This is a very difficult and sensitive issue, and I would welcome some direction from the court," Sinunu said in a phone interview Monday. "We have an obligation to give [Brady material, but] it's unsettled how to do it."
Dolores Carr, currently the frontrunner in the DA race, said Monday she hadn't seen Emerson's order and didn't feel comfortable commenting about the Brady issue.
Emerson seems quite skeptical toward the DA's position.
"Part of the problem with the motions filed by the people is that they are not following the logical analytical sequence of first making the Brady determination before trying to assert that other rights and privileges should be balanced against it," Judge Emerson wrote in his May brief.
Emerson doesn't think he will hold a hearing to address the issue, he said in his order, and plans to alert all interested parties when he makes a decision.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUILawyer.com
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, is asked San Diego DUI questions by other attorneys.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:32 AM links to this post
Monday, August 21, 2006
San Diego DUI Attorney News - Funny man in rehabilitation for alcohol abuse
ROBIN WILLIAMS had been admitted into rehab for alcohol abuse.
Robin reportedly entered the residential rehab facility last month. On Wednesday, the 55-year-old actor's rep released the following statement: "After 20 years of sobriety, Robin Williams found himself drinking again and has decided to take proactive measures to deal with this for his own well-being and the well-being of his family. He asks that you respect his and his family's privacy during this time. He looks forward to returning to work this fall to support his upcoming film releases."
The beloved star has Hollywood rallying behind him. At an anniversary event for "Star Trek," LEONARD NIMOY and WILLIAM SHATNER were both saddened to hear of his relapse. "I'm very sorry to hear that, I wish him well," Nimoy said. "One day at a time."
"The tragedy of somebody having that allergic disease is profound," Shatner added. "It's awful for the person and their family."
Williams appeared recently on the big screen in the hit comedy 'RV' and in the psychological thriller 'The Night Listener,' based on the real-life experiences from Tales of the City author ARMISTEAD MAUPIN.
The comedian won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his dramatic turn in 'Good Will Hunting' opposite MATT DAMON in 1998, and received acclaim for numerous other films including 'Dead Poets Society' and 'The Fisher King'.
Robin may have related this story:
Q. What is one of the best possible things you San Diego DUI drivers can do to help to stop San Diego DUI Police from making so many San Diego drunk driving arrests?
The San Diego DUI answer comes from our lucky friends across the ocean.
From the State where drink driving is considered a sport, comes a true
story from Carrick-on-Suir Ireland.
Recently a routine Gardai patrol parked outside a local neighbourhood
tavern. Late in the evening the Garda noticed a man leaving the bar so
intoxicated that he could barely walk.
The man stumbled around the car park for a few minutes, with the Garda
quietly observing.
After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five vehicles, the man
managed to find his car which he fell into. He was there for a few minutes
as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.
Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off (it was a fine
dry night), flicked the indicators on, then off, tooted the horn and then
switched on the lights.
He moved the vehicle forward a few cm, reversed a little and then remained
stationary for a few more minutes as some more vehicles left.
At last he pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly down the
road.
The Garda, having patiently waited all this time, now started up the patrol
car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man over and carried
out a Breathalyzer test.
To his amazement theBreathalyzer indicated no evidence of the man having
consumed alcohol at all!
Dumbfounded, the Garda said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the
Police station this Breathalyzer equipment must be broken."
"I doubt it," said the man, "tonight I'm the designated decoy".
True story...
FREE "EVALUATION FORM"
href="http://www.sandiegodui.com">http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html
http://www.sandiegodui.com
http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:07 AM links to this post
Sunday, August 20, 2006
http://www.SanDiegoDUILawyer.com
On the federal government crackdown on drunk drivers, a reasonable reader would be hard-pressed to find any legitimate originalist support for the national government regulating state and local traffic laws, troubling is the federal administrator who is responsible for this federalism-busting pogrom bleating "it's illegal to drink and drive, and you're going to go to jail for it."
The federal message is an obvious falsehood because it is not illegal to drink and drive anywhere in the USA!
It is illegal to drive while impaired by or under the influence of alcohol, as defined by law and science, and it is illegal to drive with certain quantities of alcohol in one's system in many jurisdictions, but driving after drinking, without more, is not illegal.
Saying it's illegal to drink and drive is sheer political terrorism, designed to alter social conduct and to scare the public with misstatements and illegal threats to serve a misguided political agenda.
George Bush said he would root out and then chop off terrorism wherever he
finds it; he should look in the friggin' mirror ~ if he is really sincere.
http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com
http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 6:42 PM links to this post
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - California's motorcycle helmet law has been declared unconstitutional
SANTA CRUZ CO. JUDGE RULES HELMET LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL
08/18/06
WATSONVILLE
California's motorcycle helmet law has been declared unconstitutionally vague by a Santa Cruz County judge because the California Highway Patrol has not adopted adequate helmet regulations.
Superior Court Judge Michael Barton issued the ruling on Tuesday in the case of Aptos resident Richard Quigley, 61. Quigley received nine citations from Watsonville police and the CHP in 2003 and 2004 for violating the state's helmet law. On all but one of those occasions he was wearing headgear that was embroidered with the letters "DOT,'' a certification of compliance with federal Department of Transportation standards, according to Barton's ruling.
CHP officers cited him despite the headgear because it did not look like a traditional helmet.
"The only evidence offered against the defendant... were complaints by the prosecution that the headgear looked like a 'typical baseball cap,''' Barton wrote in his ruling.
Barton ruled that the law unconstitutional and dismissed all of the citations against Quigley because the CHP has failed to properly define what constitutes a compliant helmet under the law.
"The CHP is the only state agency authorized by the statutes to adopt reasonable regulations establishing specifications and standards for motorcycle safety helmets. The CHP's failure to adopt such regulations, and make them available to the public, has rendered the helmet law statutes void for vagueness as applied,'' according to Barton's ruling.
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com
http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 6:19 PM links to this post
San Diego DUI lawyer news: Sheriff's brother evaded jail time
When Sheriff Mark Pazin's brother showed up to court in March to be sentenced for a drunken- driving arrest last year, a judge told him he had to pay a fine and take a class.
Richard Pazin didn't have to spend any more time in jail because he had already been locked up for 48 hours after his arrest, the judge said.
Or had he?
It turns out that despite a policy to almost always bring DUI offenders to jail -- or at least fingerprint and photograph them -- after they are arrested, Merced police decided to forego that procedure with Pazin, the Sun-Star has learned.
Instead, police reports show, an officer called the sheriff on a December night and told him to pick up his intoxicated brother who had been caught driving away from Sir James Steakhouse and Lounge in east Merced around midnight.
Court records show Richard Pazin's blood alcohol level was above 0.20 -- much higher than the 0.08 legal limit.
The 46-year-old Pazin, who is a manager at the Merced-based oil distributor Myers & Pazin Inc., did not serve a minute of his supposed 48-hour sentence, according to jail records. In fact, he was never booked.
But when Pazin was brought before Merced County Commissioner Ralph Cook, the judge assumed Pazin had done his time just like every other DUI offender. Cook said he never checked to see if there was any record of Pazin serving his 48 hours in jail, so he gave him "credit for time served" and told Pazin he was a free man.
When told earlier this week that Pazin escaped jail time, the court's presiding judge, Frank Dougherty, said he was surprised Pazin slipped through and said he will tell the sheriff's brother he still has to do time.
"We just assume law enforcement does their job, but that didn't happen in this case," he said.
Dougherty sent a letter to Richard Pazin on Monday telling him to show up to court on Friday where he'll be ordered to serve 48 hours in jail.
The letter reads in part: "In nearly 17 years as a judge here in Merced County I have not come across a DUI case where the subject was not booked into jail."
But Dougherty also included a mea culpa in his letter: "As the presiding judge, I take full responsibility for the court's failure to order the subject of this DUI complaint to serve jail time."
Richard Pazin did not return calls or e-mails this week. He issued a brief statement through his attorney that said he would comply with Dougherty's demands.
"All I can tell you is that I made an error in judgment," the statement reads. "I went before Commissioner Cook and started the penalty process of my mistake. Evidently there was an error with the court system. I will now do what is asked and put this episode behind me."
Cook and Dougherty said they will now start checking jail records before giving DUI offenders credit for time served.
"Believe me, I will look from now on," Cook said. "It's something I just assumed."
But the judges say the error is not entirely the court's fault. They said that their understanding of police policies were that all DUI offenders are brought to jail.
Sgt. Curt Gorman, who was the supervising sergeant on duty the night Richard Pazin was arrested, said he instructed officers to call Sheriff Pazin to pick up his brother instead of taking Richard Pazin downtown. He said he feared that if Pazin was jailed he would be harmed by inmates who were mad at the sheriff.
But asked why he didn't try to ensure Pazin's safety by asking the jail to put him in a private cell at either of the county's two jails, Gorman replied: "I probably could have done that, but at the time I didn't do that. That's second-guessing myself. I've gotta make decisions."
Gorman added, "It just seemed like it was the best thing to do at the time."
The sergeant said he couldn't think of any other time he has told officers to not bring DUI offenders to jail for reasons other than a medical emergency.
Most DUI offenders jailed
Sheriff Pazin said that when he was awakened in the middle of the night by a police officer asking him to pick up his brother, he didn't question why the police weren't going to have Richard Pazin booked and jailed.
He said that while it was somewhat of an "anomaly" that his brother was not jailed, it was not unheard of for police to simply cite and release DUI offenders.
In fact, Fresno police routinely let drunken drivers go after they are given a citation, Pazin said.
A Fresno sergeant said Pazin is correct. In an effort to cut down on booking fees and jail overcrowding, the city's police department did not jail the majority of DUI offenders last year.
But in Merced -- as in many other jurisdictions -- the practice is much different.
A spokesman for the Merced Police Department said the department's policy leaves open the possibility for DUI offenders to not be jailed, but few are actually let go.
"Generally speaking, in the case of DUIs, it is not our policy to just cite and release," spokesman David Carlin said. "But it has been done in the past."
But the only other instance Carlin could point to where that had occurred was a DUI offender who was arrested in October 2005 and was let go because she had crashed her car and needed to be sent to the hospital.
All this raises the question: Why was Pazin not jailed?
Sergeant regrets giving sheriff's brother a pass
Gorman says he doesn't have a good answer to that question.
He says he now wonders whether he made the right call by telling officers to not bring Pazin to jail.
Gorman said that at the time of the arrest, he believed that any special arrangements the jail would have had to make to accommodate the sheriff's brother -- such as moving around inmates who could harm Richard Pazin -- weren't worth putting Pazin in jail for "a few hours."
But Gorman said he didn't call the jail to see if a private cell was readily available. Gorman also said he didn't consider another commonly used option: ask the jail to simply book Pazin and get his fingerprints and mug shot -- but not put him in a cell.
That booking information would have been sent to the state Department of Justice, said David LaBahn, who heads the California District Attorney's Association.
In this case, Richard Pazin's arrest file will be "incomplete" and without a photo and fingerprint -- leaving open the possibility that his 2005 DUI conviction could be challenged if he was caught driving drunk again, LaBahn said.
Gorman now says he would have handled the situation differently.
"In hindsight, I could have done a couple other things," he said.
But Gorman denies giving Richard Pazin a free pass because he is the sheriff's brother.
"I wasn't doing him any favors," he said. "I don't work for the sheriff."
Sheriff Pazin said he didn't try to interfere with his brother's arrest. He also said he was not involved with his brother's court proceedings.
"I was sure I kept my distance to avoid any appearance of involvement," Pazin said. "... Everything was done by the numbers as far as I know."
Pazin dismissed as "opinion" Judge Dougherty's statement that he had never come across a DUI offender who wasn't jailed.
"I guess that's his opinion," he said. "That's a nice opinion. I wish he had shared that with me."
But Dougherty said the police were at least partly to blame for the Richard Pazin fiasco.
"We presume that law enforcement would do their job correctly," he said.
San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 22 years of experience.
San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 22 years of experience. http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com
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.sandiegoduicom.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
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:26 AM links to this post
Saturday, August 19, 2006
San Diego DUI Lawyer News: National Effort against DUI clients
WASHINGTON - Federal and state traffic safety officials started a nationwide crackdown on drunken driving Wednesday, saying previous efforts had not done enough to reduce deaths from impaired drivers. Drunken drivers accounted for some 13,000 deaths in traffic accidents last year.
The crackdown, however, may face resistance from a growing industry devoted to defending people arrested on drunken driving charges. These groups contend overzealous police forces inflated the problem out of proportion, trampling rights in the process.
The new effort, sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, involves 11,000 law enforcement agencies. It includes:
_Increased patrols and checkpoints.
_An $11 million television advertising campaign that will replace the previous "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" slogan with "Drunk driving - over the limit, under arrest."
"Drunk driving is an epidemic and is a scourge of this country," said Jim Champagne, a Louisiana State Police trooper and chairman of the Governors' Highway Safety Association. "The cost to the country in lives, in jobs and in economic value is unbelievable."
The traffic safety administration released new statistics Wednesday showing that deaths in traffic accidents involving drivers whose blood alcohol level was at least 0.08 fell 1.2 percent in 2005 to 12,945.
NHTSA Administrator Nicole Nason said the decision to get tougher with drunken drivers came after a decade of small reductions in fatalities despite arrests that totaled 1.4 million in 2004.
"This is really focused on enforcement. This is not a friend asking a friend to not drive drunk," Nason said. The message is "it's illegal to drink and drive, and you're going to go to jail for it."
During the past decade, federal officials and groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers pushed for tougher penalties against drunken drivers. Since 1999, every state has set its definition of drunk at the 0.08 blood alcohol level, and added penalties such as on-the-spot cancellation of driver's licenses and vehicle impoundment for suspects who refuse blood alcohol tests. Champagne contended states could do more, and "stop piddy-padding in judicial systems and letting drunk drivers get off."
While those changes made a small dent in alcohol-related deaths, they spawned a network of companies and attorneys who defend people charged with drunken driving. The National College for DUI Defense has about 500 attorneys as members, and several Internet sites offer long lists of tips about what to do if pulled over for drunken driving.
"It's lawful in every state to drink and drive, but it's unlawful to drink to the point of impairment," said Patrick Barone, a Birmingham, Mich., attorney who specializes in drunken driving defense. Roadblocks and checkpoints "are an inappropriate use of executive power and police resources."
Barone and other attorneys contend the revenue generated from drunken driving cases in fines make police overly aggressive, arresting drivers who have a smell of alcohol on their breath but no signs of impairment. William Head, an Atlanta attorney who handles roughly 1,000 drunken driving cases a year, says arrest quotas at some police departments sweep up innocent people.
"Zero tolerance is a great slogan, but it's not the law in any state in the country," he said
San Diego drunk driving lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association (formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller 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. His DMV - DUI
work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller actively defends these cases, and files DMV writs and appeals. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is in Good Standing with the State Bar (#114305).
Get Help Today:
* COMPLETE FREE SAN DIEGO DUI "EVALUATION FORM"
href="http://www.sandiegodui.com">http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html
Quality San Diego DMV - DUI legal representation: 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI
(1-800-843-5293)
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500
San Diego, CA 92122
(619) 218 - 2997 portable/voice mail
www.SanDiegoDUI.com
www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com
www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:15 AM links to this post
Friday, August 18, 2006
San Diego DUI Attorney: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics
New DUI stats, ad campaign from NHTSA
New numbers from the nation's highway agency:
ROCKVILLE, Md. (AP) — Federal traffic officials hope new ads promising arrest for drunken drivers will lower death statistics that have barely budged in a decade.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a report Wednesday that 39 percent of all traffic deaths last year involved alcohol.
A total of 16,885 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2005, including pedestrians and cyclists, down just 0.2 percent from 16,919 in 2004.
Fatal crashes involving at least one driver or motorcyclist with an illegal blood-alcohol level of 0.08 dropped more than 1 percent. But traffic deaths in crashes involving a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 — nearly twice the legal limit — were up nearly 1 percent.
Safety officials said little progress has been made during the past decade. In hopes of changing that, they are launching an $11 million advertising campaign targeting male drivers ages 21-34, along with stepped-up enforcement through Labor Day, including sobriety checkpoints and additional patrols.
The new advertising largely targets males, who had the highest percentage of drivers in fatal drunken driving crashes. One-third of the men in those fatal crashes were ages 21 to 34.
The ads include a new slogan, “Drunk Driving: Over the Limit. Under Arrest.” They replace previous spots that said, “You Drink. You Drive. You Lose.”
NHTSA drunken driving statistics:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/
http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com
http://www.sandiegodui.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:49 AM links to this post
Thursday, August 17, 2006
San Diego DUI news - State Prison for Hit & Run Driver with multiple DUI's
A Clairemont man with a history of drunken driving was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison yesterday for running down and killing a young woman in July 2005.
Robin Charles Brady, 50, pleaded guilty in June to fatal hit-and-run driving, and driving with a suspended license, in connection with the death of Angelina Padilla, 19. He also pleaded guilty to making a criminal threat in an unrelated matter.
Padilla's mother, Kathy Padilla, and prosecutor James Koerber told Judge David J. Danielsen that the sentence was far too lenient for Brady, who prosecutors said has eight previous drunken-driving convictions.
“Four years and eight months is not enough for the life of this young girl, but that's all the law provides,” Koerber said in court.
The judge said he imposed the maximum sentence allowed by law for the charges filed against Brady.
“The Legislature has given us some limited choices in this case,” Danielsen said.
The judge also ordered Brady to pay Angelina Padilla's family $54,487 to cover their costs related to her death.
“He fled the scene and took the best evidence with him,” Koerber told the judge.
Padilla was struck from behind while walking along Clairemont Mesa Boulevard near Rolfe Road about 1:20 a.m. July 23, 2005. She suffered serious head injuries and died the next day. Her mother said she was on her way home from a friend's home.
Addressing Brady in court, Kathy Padilla said, “You killed our daughter, Angelina Raquel Padilla, but you also killed our family.”
Calling Brady a coward for not stopping to help her daughter after he struck her, Kathy Padilla told him “you chose to save your own skin and let our daughter die.”
Brady made no comment during the hearing and stood facing the judge with his hands folded in front of him. He didn't look at Kathy Padilla when she spoke to him.
Outside the courthouse, Kathy Padilla said she is working with the San Diego chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in an effort to increase the penalties for hit-and-run driving.
“I'm not going to sit and be bitter about it. I'm trying to do something about it,” Padilla said. “I want my daughter to be remembered as the sweet angel she was and is. Maybe this was her purpose in life.”
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUILawyer.com
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, is asked San Diego DUI questions by other attorneys.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 3:49 PM links to this post
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Untested Conspiracy Theory Seeks to Expand San Diego DUI Liability
If an untested and novel legal theory succeeds, the wife and brother of a binge drinker with a string of drunken driving arrests could be held civilly liable for the death of a bicyclist because they supplied the car, insurance and alcohol to the driver.
The Northern California case uses a conspiracy theory to expand third-party liability as a means to avoid traditional limits on culpability under state dram-shop laws.
Dram-shop laws shield bar owners and social hosts from civil liability if they supply alcohol to a drinker who later causes a death.
Although the theory may be a long shot, a state judge has allowed the suit to proceed to discovery. The suit seeks damages from the wife and bar owner/brother of Joseph Lynchard, 74, of Santa Rosa, Calif.
Lynchard ran over a cyclist after a lunchtime drinking binge with his alcohol level three times the legal limit, according to the Sonoma County, Calif., lawsuit, Black v. Lynchard, No. SCV 236858.
"Our position is there has to be joint action in support of a wrongful act, that wrongful act in this case is [Lynchard's] drinking," said Patrick Emery, a Santa Rosa personal injury attorney representing the family of Kathryn Black, a 43-year-old cyclist.
ACTIONS OF CONSPIRACY?
Emery said that Lynchard's wife transferred all his assets to her name after an earlier accident and got him auto insurance. His brother, owner of Eddie's Bar, bought Lynchard a pickup truck and supplied him with drinks the day of the accident. All this, Emery argues, shows a conspiracy to commit an illegal act, allowing Lynchard to drive while drunk.
If Emery succeeds, it could hold those to account who supply alcohol in the most egregious cases. "It would open courts to a limited number of circumstances, when someone other than the driver is responsible for putting that individual in motion," Emery said.
Mark R. Mittelman, attorney for bar owner Eddie Lynchard, said, "There is no conspiracy here and they are not going to be able to prove conspiracy." Mittelman has already knocked out a claim for negligent service of alcohol. "So they've gotten creative," he said.
"This [suit] is going to go down the tubes as a good shot, but there is nothing in the law that authorizes an end-run around the dram-shop law," Mittelman said.
Lynchard faces a separate criminal charge of second-degree murder.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUILawyer.com
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, is asked San Diego DUI questions by other attorneys.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:55 AM links to this post
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
San Diego DUI Attorney News: Are you responsible for the death of a DUI victim somehow?
If an untested and novel legal theory succeeds, the wife and brother of a binge drinker with a string of drunken driving arrests could be held civilly liable for the death of a bicyclist because they supplied the car, insurance and alcohol to the driver.
The Northern California case uses a conspiracy theory to expand third-party liability as a means to avoid traditional limits on culpability under state dram-shop laws.
Dram-shop laws shield bar owners and social hosts from civil liability if they supply alcohol to a drinker who later causes a death.
Although the theory may be a long shot, a state judge has allowed the suit to proceed to discovery. The suit seeks damages from the wife and bar owner/brother of Joseph Lynchard, 74, of Santa Rosa, Calif.
Lynchard ran over a cyclist after a lunchtime drinking binge with his alcohol level three times the legal limit, according to the Sonoma County, Calif., lawsuit, Black v. Lynchard, No. SCV 236858.
"Our position is there has to be joint action in support of a wrongful act, that wrongful act in this case is [Lynchard's] drinking," said Patrick Emery, a Santa Rosa personal injury attorney representing the family of Kathryn Black, a 43-year-old cyclist.
ACTIONS OF CONSPIRACY?
Emery said that Lynchard's wife transferred all his assets to her name after an earlier accident and got him auto insurance. His brother, owner of Eddie's Bar, bought Lynchard a pickup truck and supplied him with drinks the day of the accident. All this, Emery argues, shows a conspiracy to commit an illegal act, allowing Lynchard to drive while drunk.
If Emery succeeds, it could hold those to account who supply alcohol in the most egregious cases. "It would open courts to a limited number of circumstances, when someone other than the driver is responsible for putting that individual in motion," Emery said.
Mark R. Mittelman, attorney for bar owner Eddie Lynchard, said, "There is no conspiracy here and they are not going to be able to prove conspiracy." Mittelman has already knocked out a claim for negligent service of alcohol. "So they've gotten creative," he said.
"This [suit] is going to go down the tubes as a good shot, but there is nothing in the law that authorizes an end-run around the dram-shop law," Mittelman said.
Lynchard faces a separate criminal charge of second-degree murder.
http://www.sandiegodui.com
http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com
http://www.1800thelawdui.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 10:43 PM links to this post
San Diego DUI - California DA must prove 3 actual priors for a DUI to be a felony
The three or more prior drunk driving convictions that elevate a Veh. C. §23152 offense to a felony under Veh. C. §23550 must be pled and proved at the preliminary examination.
In People v. Superior Court (Mendella) (1983) 33 C3d 754, 191 CR 1, the California Supreme Court held that sentence enhancements must be pled and proved at a preliminary examination, or they are subject to challenge via a Pen. C. §995 motion in Superior Court. However, in People v. Wims (1995) 10 C4th 293, 41 CR2d 241, Justice Kennard remarked at footnote 5 of her concurring and dissenting opinion that Mendella does not apply to prior convictions, and this seems to be an accurate statement of the law.
But drunk driving convictions are not alleged as sentence enhancements in §23550 prosecutions, but rather as offense elevators (see, People v. Coronado (1995) 12 C4th 145, 48 CR2d 77); they elevate the §23152 offense to a felony. Thus, they are subject to Mendella. Miranda v. Superior Court (1995) 38 CA4th 902, 45 CR2d 498, the only case that mentions both Mendella and Veh. C. §23175 (now Veh. C. §23550), is in accord. See also, Panos v. Superior Court (1984) 156 CA3d 626, 203 CR 115.
Similar reasoning applies to Veh. C. §23550.5 felony drunk driving prosecutions.
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com
http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com
http://www.sandiegodui.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 10:37 PM links to this post
Police get license-plate radar to help in war vs. motorists
If you're driving a stolen or unregistered car or have a fistful of outstanding parking tickets, you may want to think twice about driving through Broome County.
The Broome County Sheriff's Office, Binghamton Police Bureau and New York State Police at Kirkwood have partnered in an effort to equip patrol cars with mobile license-plate readers, which will sound an alarm when a violation is detected from among more than 400,000 license plates in a computer database.
Three cars -- one for each agency -- are equipped with the units. The two digital-imaging cameras, the size of footballs, are mounted on the roof and connected to interior laptop computers containing all licensing data available from the state Department of Motor Vehicles and any additional vehicular information local officials wish to input.
The units will give police "X-ray vision," said New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Director Chauncey Parker. DCJS has given Broome County and Binghamton the units because they are involved in the state's Operation Impact program. Each unit costs about $20,000.
How effective is the unit? It can scan 60 license plates a minute, officials said.
"In the past week, we have scanned some 6,000 license plates and come up with 12 arrests for a variety of vehicle and traffic violations," Broome County Sheriff David E. Harder said.
After taking a picture of the plate, the unit will sound an alarm if the license plate belongs to a stolen vehicle, if the owner's license is suspended or revoked, or there's some other special item listed.
"The biggest problem is that the officer running the unit then must validate the authenticity of the license plate and identify the car," Binghamton Patrolman Scott J. Donahue said.
"Someday, the units hopefully will be in every police car in New York state," Parker said. "If we give law enforcement the tools, they will get the job done."
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, explains how a San Diego DUI Lawyer may help you.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer Rick Mueller answers common San Diego DUI questions.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUILawyer.com
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, is asked San Diego DUI questions by other attorneys.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the San Diego drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, explains how a San Diego DUI Lawyer may help you.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer Rick Mueller answers common San Diego DUI questions.
San Diego DUI Lawyer - San Diego Attorney Drunk Driving / San Diego DWI Lawyer can help you beat the charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com .
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller, a San Diego Drunk Driving / DWI Defense Attorney handling San Diego California DUI & DMV cases, shows how a San Diego DUI Lawyer will help you. http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:47 AM links to this post
Monday, August 14, 2006
San Diego DUI - An Alcohol test has flaws
A Test for Alcohol -- And Its Flaws
A new screen detects Sunday's gin in Monday's urine
but it may be ensnaring some innocent people too
Beer or Hand Sanitizer?
August 12, 2006
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The state of Pennsylvania this year suspended Nancy Clark's nursing license, saying the recovering addict violated her agreement to remain free of alcohol. Its evidence: a new type of urine test that Ms. Clark flunked.
The new analysis "is the gold standard of testing," Shawn E. Smith, a lawyer for the state, argued during a June 7 hearing here on Ms. Clark's fate.
Ms. Clark counters: "I didn't drink."
Throughout history, few questions have prompted more lies than, "Have you been drinking?" For decades, the truth has been obtainable through urine tests and breathalyzers. But since alcohol dissipates from the system in a matter of hours, that truth always has been as fleeting as drunkenness itself. Whether a person is drunk this moment can be documented. But how about last weekend?
Now comes a test that can answer that question. Known as EtG, the test is being administered by the industry that searches the urine of millions of Americans annually for illicit drugs. Because alcohol is legal, EtG testing is being performed only within a hidden society of people who aren't supposed to drink at all -- and are required to provide regular urine samples to prove it.
A breakthrough for the $4 billion-a-year urine-testing industry, the new test doesn't screen for alcohol. It screens for ethyl glucuronide, or EtG, a byproduct of the metabolization of alcohol, which remains in the system for about 80 hours. Now that Sunday's gin can be detected in Monday's urine, about 10% of people who had been passing conventional urine screens are testing positive for alcohol, say administrators of the test.
About 20,000 urine samples a month are now being tested for EtG, which was introduced about two years ago, and that growth is continuing exponentially. At $25 -- compared with about $7 for a standard drug screen -- EtG represents an important new source of revenue for the urine-testing industry, whose largest players include Quest Diagnostics Inc. and National Medical Services.
Little advertised, though, is that EtG can detect alcohol even in people who didn't drink. Any trace of alcohol may register, even that ingested or inhaled through food, medicine, personal-care products or hand sanitizer.
The test "can't distinguish between beer and Purell" hand sanitizer, says H. Westley Clark, director of the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's center for substance-abuse treatment. His office intends to study EtG and issue a statement on its use in the fall. "When you're looking at loss of job, loss of child, loss of privileges, you want to make sure" the test is right, he says.
Because EtG is simply a molecule that any laboratory can identify, nobody owns the test. Urine-testing companies are marketing it to courts, which increasingly demand abstinence from drunk-driving defendants. The test is also being marketed to boards or companies that license workers in health care, aviation, law and other professions. These boards routinely require urine monitoring of professionals who are recovering addicts. About 4,500 physicians alone in the U.S. are subject to urine monitoring.
The urine-testing industry doesn't need federal approval for tests that aren't used to monitor federal employees and aren't sold over the counter. Testing firms say it is up to their clients -- the courts and licensing boards -- to decide how to use the results.
"It's a powerful tool," says Doug Lewis, president of United States Drug Testing Laboratories Inc. near Chicago. "But it's only a tool."
Some in sobriety enforcement contend any alcohol, however ingested, could trigger a relapse in recovering addicts. "They must abstain from alcohol in any form," says Kevin Knipe, manager of a Pennsylvania state program for monitoring physicians, nurses, pharmacists and others.
Yet critics worry that growing acceptance of the EtG test is punishing those who haven't relapsed or aren't problem drinkers. They argue it's unfair to demand addicts produce urine free of any trace of alcohol because there is no comprehensive list of products that contain it. Mouthwash and cold medicine are sources of alcohol. It can also be found in pastries, perfume, salad dressing, insecticide, ripe fruit, lunch meat, vanilla extract, ice cream and automotive fuel.
Such critics have gained an unusual ally: the physician who pioneered EtG testing in America. "Use of this screen has gotten ahead of the science," says Gregory Skipper, an Alabama addiction specialist and recovering addict. He says he has received about $10,000 in consulting fees, mostly from urine-testing firms, in connection with the test.
An unfair monitoring test could dissuade addicts from entering monitoring programs voluntarily. After Ms. Clark, the Pennsylvania nurse, confessed her addiction to her supervisor, she entered a state-monitored program, requiring attendance at two 12-step meetings a week. On average, she has attended three a week, her sponsor says. She also has to phone a toll-free number each weekday morning to find out whether a urine sample is required that day.
In five years, she has never failed to call or submit a specimen, according to court testimony. She pays the $120-a-month cost of monitoring. According to testimony, after getting sober, Ms. Clark joined a church, entered its ministerial program, started a program to entertain patients and raised three children.
In 2004, the state of Pennsylvania introduced the EtG test. After flunking it, she says she read the label of every imaginable product -- edible and inedible -- only to flunk it again. "I don't know what else I could have done," says Ms. Clark, 49, who has practiced nursing since 1978. She recently passed a polygraph test asking whether she has drunk alcohol.
In January, the state suspended her license, costing Ms. Clark her job of eight years as an assessor of patient care in a hospital. She is spending thousands of dollars to fight her suspension. Her witnesses include her boss at the hospital, who describes Ms. Clark as indispensable, and Dr. Skipper, who doesn't believe her positive EtG scores represent proof of drinking.
The purpose of urine monitoring has always been to prevent -- or provide early warning of -- relapse. Preliminary evidence suggests monitoring programs may increase success: Addicted physicians subject to urine monitoring relapse at a rate of 25% over five years, studies show, compared with a rate among the general population of 75% in a single year. No comparison exists for unmonitored physicians.
Despite innocent positives, some courts and licensing boards are digging in their heels. They are arguing that a participant "must produce a negative urine" sample, says Mr. Lewis, the drug-testing company president. "Trying to argue that you're an innocent victim -- good luck."
Indeed, the state of Pennsylvania isn't saying that Nancy Clark drank, only that she failed to produce clean urine. "This case is not about relapse," said Mr. Smith, the lawyer for the state, in the June argument against her appeal.
Until the EtG test, a determined drinker could deceive monitors, because, unlike illicit drugs, alcohol dissipates from the system in a matter of hours. Recovering alcoholics say they could easily drink weekends -- when random tests typically aren't required -- and could also drink weekdays if they stopped early enough.
Sobriety monitors say their main responsibility is to protect the public. "I had one physician walk into my office with a [low-level EtG score] and he said he didn't drink," says Martha Brown, a University of South Florida psychiatrist who monitors addicted professionals. "He looked great. I believed him." Six months later, he admitted he had been drinking all along, she says.
Catching such drinkers wasn't the primary interest of Dr. Skipper when he set about searching for a better screen for alcohol. As director of Alabama's monitoring-and-assistance program for addicted physicians, he wanted to find more convincing proof of sobriety.
Dr. Skipper, a 56-year-old internist, had a personal interest in such a test: He is a recovering narcotics addict. After entering a chemical-dependency program in 1981, he underwent additional training, received a certification in addiction medicine, and began caring for others. He had a relapse in 1990, and confessed to stealing painkillers from the medical facility where he worked. His license was suspended for a year.
Dr. Skipper says he has been clean and sober since Nov. 16, 1990. He continues submitting voluntary urine samples, and advises other recovering physicians to do the same.
One physician in Alabama's monitoring program says he has been sober 14 years, yet continues submitting urine specimens, expressly for his malpractice insurer. "The only proof of my sobriety is my urine," says James, a gynecologist who asked that his last name not be used.
In 2001, Dr. Skipper attended a conference in Europe and heard a lecture about ethyl glucuronide. It had been discovered nearly a century earlier, but only now was its use as a possible marker of alcohol consumption being explored. Dr. Skipper and the lecturer, a Swiss psychiatrist named Friedrich Wurst, eventually conducted research together. Their studies revealed a powerful connection between alcohol consumption and creation of EtG.
The publication of these results generated much interest among U.S. urine-testing laboratories and their clients.
Lacking funds, Dr. Skipper and colleagues conducted only limited research, most of it focused on this issue: Could drinkers somehow avoid producing EtG? Except for rare cases, the answer was no. Whether alcohol derived from other sources could show up in the test wasn't a central focus of their research.
With all published research on EtG having examined about 1,500 specimens, Dr. Skipper expressed the belief that any level of EtG above 100 nanograms per milliliter of urine -- an infinitesimal amount -- represented proof of drinking.
Some in the urine-testing industry went a step further, saying any EtG is evidence of drinking. A news release from Quest Diagnostics's Northwest Toxicology unit asserted: "EtG is not detectable in urine unless an alcoholic beverage has been consumed." A spokeswoman for Quest says, "That was the best information we had at the time." Before introducing the test, a Quest scientist says that the company "evaluated it on some people here at the lab."
Statements about the infallibility of the test bewildered Lorie Garlick, a California pharmacist who says she is in recovery from narcotics addiction. To comply with an agreement with the California Board of Pharmacy, she says she attended 12-step meetings and avoided drugs and alcohol. When her urine tested positive -- twice -- for EtG in 2005, she went online and discovered the new screen was touted as definitive proof of drinking.
"The first thing that went through my head was that there must have been a mix-up at the lab -- my urine got swapped with somebody else's," says Ms. Garlick, who says she never drank. Her license has been suspended and she hasn't worked in more than a year. The California Board of Pharmacy didn't return phone calls.
She found a Web site with a chat room for addicts claiming to have been victimized by EtG. Its founder: Dr. Skipper. "I'd been hearing from people saying they were innocent, and I wanted to research that," he says.
He became convinced that so-called incidental exposure to alcohol could create higher levels of EtG than he had imagined. His suspicion fell on a product that has been sweeping the halls of health care: hand sanitizers.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the use of alcohol-based sanitizers in hospitals, schools and day-care centers. Whether alcohol in these sanitizers could be absorbed doesn't appear to have been deeply studied, says physician John Boyce, who served as chairman of the CDC's hand-hygiene task force. The question also remains uninvestigated by Pfizer Inc., owner of the dominant brand, Purell, the company says.
A small study of 24 people that Dr. Skipper helped perform found that use of Purell could result in EtG showing up in urine. It concluded alcohol in the sanitizer can enter the body through inhalation, rather than through the skin. That study, presented in May at the scientific conference of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, hasn't been published or peer-reviewed.
At Dr. Skipper's suggestion, Ms. Garlick, 43, entered a treatment center in California and stayed two days under the supervision of counselors instructed to search her and her belongings for any products containing alcohol. Each morning, she provided a urine sample that tested negative for EtG. Then she washed her hands repeatedly during the day with Purell -- and her urine that night had an EtG score of 770. That was more than seven times the cutoff that Dr. Skipper originally thought represented proof of drinking. By contrast, a single drink would produce a peak EtG level of perhaps 6,000 nanograms.
To Dr. Skipper, this finding didn't diminish the value of the test. After all, a negative EtG score provided definitive proof of sobriety. He says he has always believed a low-level score should be regarded as a red flag rather than grounds for prosecution. In his experience, most secret drinkers offered no defense when confronted with EtG scores.
Worried that states are treating low EtG scores as grounds for suspension, Dr. Skipper felt "a moral obligation" to speak out. Last August, he wrote an open letter to state boards that monitor health-care workers, urging them "to refrain from taking action against an employee or licensee based on urine EtG testing alone." He said he now believes incidental exposure to alcohol could create EtG levels as high as 1,500 nanograms -- far above the level that was costing many addicts their professional licenses.
His warning has gone largely unheeded. Licensing boards and other sobriety monitors continue punishing recovering addicts for producing positive EtG scores.
Most laboratories are now recommending cutoff levels of 250 or 500 nanograms. But they say it is up to their clients to decide whether a level above that amount represents proof of drinking or some other exposure to alcohol.
"The industry needs to do some population studies to get a sense of what a reasonable cutoff is," says Dr. Clark of the federal substance-abuse office.
He notes that after an opiate screen was introduced about 20 years ago, some people who tested positive protested they hadn't used opiates. When observers speculated that poppy seeds -- a baking ingredient which is also a source of opiates -- might be the explanation, "labs were saying that poppy seeds could not produce a positive for morphine at the cutoffs used," Dr. Clark says. "A few empirical tests later proved this to be false."
Establishing an EtG cutoff high enough to spare the innocent may involve allowing the guilty occasionally to slip through, concedes Dr. Clark. But the only ethical option is "to err on the side of due process," he says, noting that a true addict will get caught soon enough anyway.
Not everyone being monitored for sobriety is an addict or alcoholic. Tina Schroeder, a home-health nurse in Wichita, Kan., made what she calls the mistake of her life last year. At a going-away party for a colleague, she drank a martini -- even though she had a patient yet to visit. The smell of alcohol on her breath caught the attention either of the patient or a fellow nurse. She promptly found herself seated before her boss, to whom she confessed.
Referred to the state disciplinary board, Ms. Schroeder learned that to keep her license she had to attend 12-step meetings, visit an addiction specialist, abstain from alcohol and submit to random urine testing.
Ms. Schroeder says she has never had a problem with alcohol. Her ex-husband, Craig Schroeder, agrees. He says he never saw her consume more than two drinks at a sitting -- and that would happen once or twice a year. Her boss, Ed Cornejo, says he has seen her at many social functions but never with a drink. He believes the martini was an isolated incident. "In my opinion, she did not have a drinking problem," says Mr. Cornejo, general manager of Interim Healthcare of Wichita. "She's responsible and loyal -- an excellent nurse."
It looked as though she would gain early release from the monitoring program -- until her urine tested positive for EtG. "I didn't drink," she says.
That result meant Ms. Schroeder would remain in the program. It also prompted a letter warning that a second such score would result in immediate suspension.
"Please be aware that [over-the-counter] medications that contain alcohol can cause a positive alcohol screen," wrote Mary Carder, executive director of the Kansas Nurses Assistance Program, which oversees monitored nurses in Kansas. "You should also be cautious of any foods, sauces, pastries etc. that may have alcohol."
Ms. Schroeder says she's in such fear of getting suspended for a positive EtG test that she plans to return to school in the fall to pursue another career.
San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney Rick Mueller and his San Diego County DUI Law Center welcome you to see complete San Diego drunk driving attorney & San Diego DUI lawyer information for those accused of DUI in San Diego.
San Diego DUI attorney information could help you deal with the San Diego DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) and save your driver's license:
Why use the San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist in DUI and DMV Law
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html
List of San Diego DUI Attorney Victories and Driver's Licenses Saved in Past Few Years http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/victory.html
What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a San Diego DUI http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/10days.html
San Diego County DMV and Courts
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/courts.html
San Diego DUI Breath Test Defenses http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/defenses.html
San Diego DUI Blood Test Defenses
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/blood.html
You could take the Free San Diego DUI Survey at http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 20 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. Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller Background and Contact Information http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/about.html
San Diego DUI and DMV Penalties http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/penalty.html
Out of State License/Resident & Driving Record http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/out_of_state.html
Military Base DUI - San Diego County Federal Court - http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/base.html
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - Excellent San Diego DUI information source for San Diego county drunk driving arrest. Rights, Laws, Defenses, Penalties, DMV, Court, Military, DUI Boating, Helpful Tips and other comprehensive information. Vigorous DUI lawyer who can save your license and keep you out of jail.
Call 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI (1-800-843-5293) for a free San Diego DUI consultation http://www.1800thelawdui.com.
For help with your San Diego DUI, visit http://www.SanDiegoDUIHelp.com.
For San Diego DUI news, visit http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/.
Rick Mueller, DUI Specialist (cell: 619/218-2997)
4660 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 500, San Diego, CA, 92122
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 1:56 PM links to this post
Sunday, August 13, 2006
SanDiegoDUIhelp.com
San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney Rick Mueller specializes in California DUI and
DMV law.
San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only DMV - DUI attorney who was the
featured Speaker at 5 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last few
years.
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru" by the Bar Association.
Specially recognized as a Contributor to the California Drunk Driving Law book, he is now the San Diego DUI Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as
California's bible for DUI defense, authored by Ed Kuwatch, Paul Burglin and Barry Simons, the book features some of San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller's hard work.
San Diego drunk driving lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association (formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller 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. His DMV - DUI
work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller actively defends these cases, and files DMV writs and appeals. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is in Good Standing with the State Bar (#114305).
Get Help Today:
http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com or http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 1:55 PM links to this post
San Diego DUI - Officer charged with making False Arrests
LOS ANGELES -- A Los Angeles police officer assigned to the department's scandal-scarred Rampart Division was charged with making false arrests after he was caught in a sting operation, officials said.
Authorities said Officer Edward Beltran Zamora arrested two undercover officers for investigation of drug possession, although a surveillance video showed they had no drugs.
Police initiated the six-month sting after what officials called an unusual pattern to Zamora's arrests. The officer worked in the Rampart Division, not far from downtown, which was plagued by rogue-policing scandals in the late 1990s in which officers were accused of framing and beating scores of innocent people.
Chief William Bratton said Zamora's case was an example of how the department is trying to tackle such problems.
Advertisement
Zamora, 44, was released Friday on $20,000 bail and could not immediately be located for comment. There is no phone listing for him in the Los Angeles area.
He faces up to three years in prison if convicted of the felony of filing a false police report and two misdemeanor counts each of false arrest and false imprisonment.
Several times during his 16-year LAPD career, suspects have accused Zamora of planting evidence, authorities said. The city has paid $520,000 to settle two lawsuits filed against him.
In 2003, Zamora was accused in an internal LAPD report of dishonesty, making false statements and falsifying his daily activity field report. Few details of the accusations are available, but according to court documents a police panel concluded he had a report log that did not match information found on radio frequencies and in computer files.
---
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 10:48 AM links to this post
Saturday, August 12, 2006
San Diego DUI - Police Sergeant accused of rape of four women
BLOOMINGTON, Illinois -- A police sergeant accused of raping four women since 2002 was charged in a grand jury indictment unsealed Thursday with 35 counts, including multiple attacks on three of the victims.
Sgt. Jeff Pelo, 41, had already pleaded not guilty to sexually assaulting the four women. His attorney, Steve Skelton, said he would also plead not guilty to the additional charges in the indictment.
Skelton has called the prosecution's case flimsy. Pelo, jailed on more than $2 million bond, is scheduled to be arraigned Friday.
Pelo was first arrested in June and charged with attempting to break into a woman's home in the middle of the night. At the time, he was wearing a black T-shirt and shorts and told an officer he was out looking for a home for his mother-in-law, officials said.
Police have said they found a mask, pry bar and other items in Pelo's home that appeared to have been used in at least one of the assaults. Prosecutors said three of the accusers identified him from photo lineups and two identified him by voice.
The charges against him include home invasion and aggravated unlawful restraint involving two of the women. The charges allege he was armed with a gun or knife in those attacks. He faces intimidation charges in one attack because he allegedly threatened to harm the woman's family if she contacted police.
Pelo, a 17-year veteran, is on paid administrative leave and still collecting his $81,000 annual salary. City officials say they opted to continue paying Pelo to spare the alleged victims from testifying in a disciplinary hearing as well as criminal proceedings.
San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 22 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
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:10 AM links to this post
Friday, August 11, 2006
Florida DUI Enforcement: Forced Blood draws in any DUI arrest
Palm Bay police are going after suspected drunk drivers in a new way. Police say they have a right to seize a suspect’s blood and make it mandatory using a court order.
Police interpret the fourth amendment as giving them the right to seize blood because they say it is evidence of a crime. They say drivers will not have a choice.
"To take constitutional law and obtain a search warrant to obtain that evidence is just using the law that's been in existence all along, it's just nobody's decided to use it."
Palm Bay police also hope to train their officers so they can draw blood instead of using paramedics to do the job. DUI lawyers say if that happens, they will try to stop it.
Attorney Rick Mueller specializes in California DUI and
DMV law. He has been in practice since 1983 and received his Juris
Doctor degree from Chicago Kent College of Law.
DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only DMV - DUI attorney who was the
featured Speaker at 5 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last few
years.
Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru" by the Bar Association.
Rick spoke on "Current DMV Suspension Hearing Issues, Techniques &
Writs" at the San Diego County Courthouse on October 28, 2004.
Rick Mueller was the featured Speaker at the February 13, 2004 DUI -
DMV Seminar in downtown San Diego. He also was the DUI - DMV Lecturer at
the 2003 Public Defender's Office criminal defense seminar.
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, authored by Ed Kuwatch, Paul Burglin and Barry
Simons, 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
(formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a
member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Mr. Mueller 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. His DMV - DUI
work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders'
materials. He argues in the appellate court. He actively defends these
cases, and files DMV writs and appeals. He is in Good Standing with the
State Bar (#114305).
Contact Information:
PLEASE COMPLETE FREE "EVALUATION FORM"
href="http://www.sandiegodui.com">http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html
Quality DMV - DUI legal representation: 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI
(1-800-843-5293)
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500
San Diego, CA 92122
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:09 AM links to this post
Thursday, August 10, 2006
San Diego DUI - Nightime Construction Confuses Police
911 Dispatch Memo:
OACH N M LYDON
Event: 06-AD0167 Time: 08/04/2006 00:45:57 Call Taker: J HONEA
Location: WB 32 HY / MUIR, CHICO
Synopsis: S4 FOLLOWING CHP TO A CONSTRUCTION SITE, UNK CIRCUMSTANCES. 87 ADV THAT UNITS ARE FOLLOWING A WILLOWS CHP UNIT WHO IS FOLLOWING A CONSTRUCTION PILOT VEHICLE, THAT IS FOLLOWING A POSS DUI DRIVER.
********************************************
So, now we have a mid-nite 911 anonymous caller (Subject 4) following a couple of Butte County Sheriff Units, following a Chipper who is following a “pilot car” that is, in turn, following a possible DUI driver.
Can’t figure out how the “possible DUI driver” got in front of the pilot car………..
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 9:04 AM links to this post
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
San Diego DUI - No more lunch cocktails for attorney
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- A judge ordered a blood-alcohol test for a defense lawyer who was slurring his words, then declared a mistrial after declaring him too tipsy to argue a kidnapping case.
"I don't think you can tell a straight story because you are intoxicated," the judge told Joseph Caramango as she declared a mistrial for his client.
Caramango, 41, acknowledged in court that he was drinking the previous night, but maintained he was not drunk. If convicted, his client faces life in prison.
"I don't believe I've committed any ethical violation," Caramango said Tuesday, disputing the accuracy of the breath-alcohol test. "If it proved anything, it proved I was not intoxicated."
Clark County District Judge Michelle Leavitt announced Caramango had a blood-alcohol level of 0.075 percent. Nevada's legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers is 0.08 percent.
In an exchange recorded by courtroom video, Caramango arrived about 90 minutes late for trial and was slurring his words.
The judge asked if anything was wrong, and Caramango said he suffered a head injury in a rear-end car crash while driving to court.
Leavitt said she was suspicious because details of Caramango's account varied.
Caramango also identified a woman who accompanied him to court as his ex-girlfriend, Christine. But when questioned by the judge the woman identified herself as Josephine. She said they met only about 20 minutes earlier at a bar and coffee shop.
Leavitt did not hold Caramango in contempt of court, and it was not immediately clear if he would face discipline by the State Bar.
San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 22 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
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:55 AM links to this post
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
San Diego DUI - Entire class of police recruits fired for cheating on a test
Class of police recruits is fired
Cobb group caught in cheating scandal
08/08/06
An entire class of Cobb County police recruits was fired Monday after they cheated on a test, authorities said.
"Not much shocks me after 35 years in this business, but I was shocked," said Mickey Lloyd, Cobb's public safety director.
A police academy instructor caught two recruits comparing answers during a written exam last week, Lloyd said. After the academy alerted Lloyd on Friday, he ordered an inquest and soon learned that all 20 recruits had cheated, he said.
Most of the recruits admitted to cheating when asked about it, Lloyd said.
"They'd gotten together and decided none of them was going to fail," said Lloyd.
It's not clear how the recruits cheated, though Lloyd said they did not steal the test.
The news "dismayed" Cobb County Commissioner Helen Goreham, but she praised the swift response in drumming out the recruits suspected of cheating.
"Integrity with our police officers is something we do not skimp on," said Goreham, the commissioners' public safety liaison. "The level of service our officers provide the citizenry is top-notch. We will not tolerate an incident of this type."
Investigators do not plan to file criminal charges against any class members — a mix of men and women of various backgrounds — but they might not ever wear a law enforcement badge in Georgia, Lloyd said.
Authorities did not release the recruits' names.
Cobb officials plan to report the dismissals to the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council, which oversees the training and certification of law enforcement officers.
To get into the class, recruits had to have at least a high school diploma and pass a background check as well as psychiatric and polygraph tests — measures intended to weed out certain would-be cops.
"You'd think you'd have the cream of the crop," Lloyd said.
The recruits were county employees training to become sworn police officers. They were in the fifth week of a 22-week training period required to join about 600 officers on Cobb's police force, where salaries start around $34,600.
Instructors stress the importance of honesty with recruits. Police officers are often key witnesses in criminal trials.
"If you cheat, steal or lie, you lose your credibility in court," Lloyd said.
Commission Chairman Sam Olens said, "Our police officers need to be beyond reproach."
Lloyd sounded weary and disappointed Monday but stressed his confidence in Cobb County's thin blue line.
"The Cobb County Police Department is among the best in the state," he said. "There are a lot of fine officers out there. They work hard and they're honest. This had to be done in order to maintain this reputation."
News of the incident was rippling through the police department and county administration Monday.
"Everybody's very disturbed about it," said police spokesman Dana Pierce. "It's a disappointment to all of us."
Free Evaluation Today*
San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney Rick Mueller specializes in California DUI and
DMV law.
San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only DMV - DUI attorney who was the
featured Speaker at 5 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last few
years.
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru" by the Bar Association.
Specially recognized as a Contributor to the California Drunk Driving Law book, he is now the San Diego DUI Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as
California's bible for DUI defense, authored by Ed Kuwatch, Paul Burglin and Barry Simons, the book features some of San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller's hard work.
San Diego drunk driving lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association (formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller 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. His DMV - DUI
work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller actively defends these cases, and files DMV writs and appeals. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is in Good Standing with the State Bar (#114305).
Get Help Today:
* COMPLETE FREE SAN DIEGO DUI "EVALUATION FORM"
href="http://www.sandiegodui.com">http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:58 AM links to this post
Monday, August 07, 2006
San Diego DUI - Riverside Prosecutors mad at Judge reducing DUI sentence
MURRIETA, Calif. -- Reacting to a judge's decision to reduce a drunken driver's sentence, Riverside County prosecutors could try to have the jurist disqualified from hearing similar cases in the future, it was reported Wednesday.
Officials with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office said Superior Court Judge James Warren is "sending the wrong message" to drunken drivers who kill people, The Californian reported.
Last week, Warren reduced the two-year prison sentence of Sherri Ann Smith -- a Lake Elsinore woman who was drunk when she hit and killed a motorcyclist -- to one year in county jail.
Also last week, Warren gave a one-year county jail sentence to a man whose blood-alcohol level was nearly three times the legal limit two hours after an Interstate 15 crash that killed a woman.
A Probation Department report recommended 18 months in state prison for Danny Xavier Sanchez, The Californian reported.
"If (Warren's) predisposition on these types of cases continues, we plan to file an affidavit of prejudice," Ingrid Wyatt, spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office, told the paper. "We want to be cautious and responsible."
The determination on whether to file court documents disqualifying Warren from cases involving drunken-driving deaths would be done on a case-by-case basis, she said.
If a prosecutor does file the affidavit, Warren would automatically be removed from the case, which would then be assigned to another judge.
Neither Warren nor the county's presiding judge could be reached for comment.
Attorney Rick Mueller specializes in California DUI and
DMV law. He has been in practice since 1983 and received his Juris
Doctor degree from Chicago Kent College of Law.
DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the only DMV - DUI attorney who was the
featured Speaker at 5 DUI seminars in San Diego County in the last few
years.
Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru" by the Bar Association.
Rick spoke on "Current DMV Suspension Hearing Issues, Techniques &
Writs" at the San Diego County Courthouse on October 28, 2004.
Rick Mueller was the featured Speaker at the February 13, 2004 DUI -
DMV Seminar in downtown San Diego. He also was the DUI - DMV Lecturer at
the 2003 Public Defender's Office criminal defense seminar.
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, authored by Ed Kuwatch, Paul Burglin and Barry
Simons, 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
(formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a
member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Mr. Mueller 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. His DMV - DUI
work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders'
materials.
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:34 AM links to this post
Sunday, August 06, 2006
DUI California: Mel Gibson avoids reckless enhancement allegation
Prosecutors on Wednesday charged Mel Gibson with two misdemeanor counts of drunk driving but decided there was not enough evidence to pursue more serious charges against the actor-director for belligerent behavior directed at a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy.
Because he is charged only with misdemeanors, legal experts said, the actor could plead no contest without going to court or receiving any jail time. The arrest was Gibson's first in California for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Typically, first-time offenders have their licenses suspended, are ordered to pay fines, attend DUI offender programs and serve three years' informal probation. They may also be required to perform community service.
Officials at the Los Angeles County district attorney's office filed the charges after several days of discussion about whether the conduct detailed in Gibson's arrest report rose to the level of prosecution. In his report, Deputy James Mee said Gibson "attempted to escape custody" and repeatedly threatened him.
The star was clocked going more than 85 mph — nearly twice the posted speed limit — on Pacific Coast Highway about 2:30 a.m. last Friday. A breathalyzer test showed his blood-alcohol level to be 0.12% (the legal limit is 0.08%). In addition to drunk driving, prosecutors charged Gibson with an infraction of having an open bottle of tequila in his car.
Some veteran DUI attorneys said they were surprised that an "excessive speed enhancement" was not filed against Gibson — a charge that would mandate jail time.
"If you're going 25 mph over the speed limit, that would greatly increase your chances of jail time," said attorney Jonathan I. Kelman. "The fact that they didn't file the speed enhancement — that makes me wonder," Kelman said. "Ninety percent of my clients out of Malibu would face that enhancement if [law enforcement officials] thought they could prove the speeding."
Under state law, a driver under the influence whose speed exceeds the posted limit by 20 mph or more on streets or 30 mph on highways faces a minimum of 60 days in jail.
Paul S. Geller, another defense attorney who specializes in drunk driving cases, said the speed enhancement is a common but not automatic charge. Sometimes, he said, prosecutors use the threat of the charge as a negotiating tool.
Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, said Gibson's bellicose behavior toward the deputy made it a borderline case for resisting arrest and making criminal threats, both felonies.
"Prosecutors had to use their discretion. A different defendant, a different situation, you might have seen those charges added," Levenson said, adding that the charges filed appeared to be appropriate. "But I think people will be suspicious as to whether he has received celebrity treatment because of the way this case has been handled from the beginning."
The sheriff's Office of Independent Review is looking into whether details of Gibson's behavior were deliberately kept from the media as a favor to the actor.
In announcing the arrest, a sheriff's spokesman said Gibson was taken into custody without incident. Sources have told The Times that department officials debated for hours what to do with Mee's detailed narrative of the actor's behavior, eventually deciding to place it in a locked area in hopes that the public would not get hold of it.
Mee's report described the Oscar-winning actor-director's behavior, including allegations that he made anti-Jewish slurs, blaming Jews for "all the wars in the world" and then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"
The details became public when someone leaked the file to the celebrity website TMZ.com.
The disclosure was followed by other revelations about how sheriff's officials handled the case.
On Tuesday, sheriff's officials acknowledged that a sergeant drove Gibson 10 miles from the Malibu-Lost Hills station in Agoura to a Malibu towing yard to retrieve his sedan.
"It would be quite unusual to drive a defendant to a tow yard to pick up their vehicle after being arrested," said attorney Kelman, who has defended DUI clients for nine years. "I've had it happen once before, when a very beautiful client was taken to the tow yard three miles away," Kelman said. "Otherwise, all my other clients have been told to walk or get a ride."
Then on Wednesday, the district attorney's office acknowledged that Gibson had been released Friday on his own recognizance. On Friday, sheriff's officials said Gibson was released on $5,000 bail.
Several sources said that recent statements by Mee, the arresting deputy, and other sheriff's officials were considered when deciding whether to pursue more serious charges against Gibson.
San Diego DUI Specialist Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 22 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
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:50 AM links to this post
Saturday, August 05, 2006
San Diego DUI news: Drunk Passenger Defends DUI
Drunk Passenger Charged With DUI
Published: 8/3/2006 10:30:48 AM
A lawyer for a Pennsylvania man who was charged with DUI while he was the front seat passenger says he expects the case to be thrown out.
Last Dec. 26, a state trooper in Carlisle, in southern Pennsylvania, spotted a car swerving, and pulled the car over. The driver was holding a sandwich with two hands, and Derek Pittman was sitting in the passenger seat.
Pittman told the trooper he had been steering while his friend was eating his sandwich, and admitted he had been drinking, the Harrisburg Patriot-News reported. He blew 0.225 percent blood alcohol. The legal limit is 0.08.
The report says the trooper spotted the car swerving. Records say the trooper felt a strong alcohol odor coming from the vehicle and saw the driver holding a large sandwich with two hands.
The driver was neither tested nor arrested, but Pittman was charged with driving under the influence.
Lawyer Justin McShane has asked a Cumberland County Commonwealth judge to throw out Pittman's statement to the trooper and compel the district attorney's office to show his client was in control of the car.
The motion claims the trooper never saw Pittman's hand on the steering wheel and is relying solely on his statement. It also says the driver never took his hand off the steering wheel and was in control of the car. The motion will be heard Aug. 22.
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:11 AM links to this post
Friday, August 04, 2006
Raisins Give Breath Alcohol Test Results
August 4, 2006
Cop says Raisins Give Breath Alc. Results
People's Pharmacy
Baltimore Sun - United States
... daily dose. But someone who ate 15 or 20 raisins might register detectable alcohol on a Breathalyzer soon afterward. This happened ...
"Under these conditions, there is only about a drop of alcohol in the daily dose. But someone who ate 15 or 20 raisins might register detectable alcohol on a Breathalyzer soon afterward. This happened several years ago to a sheriff who was eating the raisins for his arthritis."
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:29 AM links to this post
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Drunk driving birthday - Not a good day for this 18 year old
Birthday boy arrested for drink driving
A GIGGLESWICK School student took a car out for a spin after drinking five pints of beer on his 18th birthday.
And after rolling his friend's Ford Fiesta on to its roof, aspiring pilot James Nicholas Rae told police officers that a mystery man called "John" had been driving the vehicle when it crashed.
Skipton magistrates heard on Friday how Rae, of Raines Road, Giggleswick, later admitted it was he who had been behind the wheel and was found to be over twice the legal limit.
He had 79 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath - the legal limit is 35 mi-crogrammes.
The court was told how the Fiesta's owner went to the defendant's birthday party on July 18 and Rae suggested that they went for a drive. He claimed he was insured to drive through his own fully-comprehensive policy.
However, the V-registered vehicle went out of control while negotiating a bend on Sour Lane, Thorby, and landed on its roof.
It was badly damaged and the defendant's friend received a serious injury to his arm, which had been resting on the sill of the open window.
When police attended, Rae told them the driver of the car was a third person called "John" but his friends later confessed that the driver of the car had been the defendant.
In his defence, it was said that Rae had never been in trouble before and the accident was likely to have been caused by a tyre blow-out or a wheel falling off rather than dangerous driv-ing.
The defendant, who had just completed his A-levels at Giggleswick School and is hoping to become a pilot, accepted that he had misled police, but had later owned up.
Rae admitted drink driving and driving without insurance. He was banned from driving for 20 months and fined a total of £250.
2:41pm Wednesday 2nd August 2006
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:42 AM links to this post
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
DUI Judge shows courage - does a good thing
Congratulations to Judge James T. Warren for having the courage of his convictions to make a right felony drunken-driving sentence while reasonably ignoring those whose reactionary ignorance is inciting them to vent their spleens on the thoughtful judge.
For far too long MADD, SADD, and other neo-Prohibitionist political action groups have transmogrified drunken driving into a political crime. They have forced their skewed perceptions and biased interests onto the brows of weak-willed legislators, judges and prosecutors to carry the day both in defining drunken-driving crimes and in commanding outrageous sentences and administrative sanctions.
DUI has spawned a profitable growth industry based on half-truths, junk science and outright lies, driven by modern philosophical descendants of the Women's Christian Temperance Union. We should applaud, rather than condemn, a judge who conscientiously tries to wade through the morass of political hysteria infecting the field to adjust a sentence to address the defendant's true culpability as well as the victim's loss.
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 7:19 AM links to this post
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
San Diego DUI - Saturation Patrol
The Paradise Police Department will be conducting a DUI saturation patrol today.
This special detail will consist of five additional officers patrolling the streets of Paradise to locate and arrest drivers who choose to drink and drive.
The Paradise police officers staffing the saturation patrol are trained in the detection of alcohol- and drug-impaired drivers. The officers will also be equipped with hand-held breath-testing devices that provide an accurate measure of blood alcohol concentrations of suspected impaired drivers.
The purpose of this saturation patrol is to make motorists aware of the consequences of DUI driving and to keep raods safe for drivers. Saturation patrols are an effective tool for achieving this goal and are designed to augment exisiting patrol operations.
Drivers who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs can expect to be arrested, Paradise police said in a press release.
Funding for the saturation patrol was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney Rick Mueller and his San Diego County DUI Law Center welcome you to see complete San Diego drunk driving attorney & San Diego DUI lawyer information for those accused of DUI in San Diego.
San Diego DUI attorney information could help you deal with the San Diego DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) and save your driver's license:
Why use the San Diego DUI Attorney Specialist in DUI and DMV Law
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html
List of San Diego DUI Attorney Victories and Driver's Licenses Saved in Past Few Years http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/victory.html
What you must do within 10 days of being arrested for a San Diego DUI http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/10days.html
San Diego County DMV and Courts
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/courts.html
San Diego DUI Breath Test Defenses http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/defenses.html
San Diego DUI Blood Test Defenses
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/blood.html
You could take the Free San Diego DUI Survey at http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html
San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is the Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 20 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. Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.
San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller Background and Contact Information http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/about.html
San Diego DUI and DMV Penalties http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/penalty.html
Out of State License/Resident & Driving Record http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/out_of_state.html
Military Base DUI - San Diego County Federal Court - http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/base.html
http://www.SanDiegoDUI.com - Excellent San Diego DUI information source for San Diego county drunk driving arrest. Rights, Laws, Defenses, Penalties, DMV, Court, Military, DUI Boating, Helpful Tips and other comprehensive information. Vigorous DUI lawyer who can save your license and keep you out of jail.
Call 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI (1-800-843-5293) for a free San Diego DUI consultation http://www.1800thelawdui.com.
For help with your San Diego DUI, visit http://www.SanDiegoDUIHelp.com.
For San Diego DUI news, visit http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/.
Rick Mueller, DUI Specialist (cell: 619/218-2997)
4660 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 500, San Diego, CA, 92122
# posted by SanDiegoDUI @ 8:51 AM links to this post
This website & linked blog is made available by this law firm for general information purposes only and to provide a general understanding of the law, not to provide legal advice. Readers of this website/blog are cautioned that reading the website/blog does not create a lawyer-client relationship between the reader and this law firm.
Nhấn Thích và G +1 nếu có ích ____________________________
0 nhận xét:
Post a Comment