California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI - latest news

California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI lawyer update

December 30, 2007

Holiday California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI road deaths down from last year

California DUI attorney news

At least one person was killed on Los Angeles County roads during the first 12 hours of the New Year's weekend, down from the three deaths reported last year by the California Highway Patrol.

The CHP reported no deaths, but its statistics did not include a male killed at Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue at 4:25 a.m. in a crash authorities say may have been caused by two other motorists street racing.

No fatalities were reported in Orange County between 6 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Saturday, according to the CHP.

Statewide, the CHP reported four fatalities this year - not including the fatality in Hollywood - down from last year's total of eight.

In Los Angeles County, CHP officers arrested 94 motorists on California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI / suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, up from last year's total of 86.

Statewide, 362 motorists have been arrested on suspicion of California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI, down from 388 last year.

The fatality totals are supposed to include all roads in California, while the CHP's California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI totals do not include those arrested for California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI by city police departments across the state.

Law agencies hold holiday California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI patrols

Monterey County law enforcement agencies will continue their annual Avoid the 18 holiday crackdown on impaired driving, with extra California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI patrols, freeway California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI saturation and California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI sobriety checkpoints through New Year's Day.

The 18 refers to the number of law enforcement agencies in Monterey County.

Monterey police will continue to field two-officer enforcement teams on overtime from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m.

Seaside police plan California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI saturation throughout the campaign and will adjust hours to cover prime California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI times.

Salinas police plan stepped-up California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI sobriety checkpoints and California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI patrols, while the California Highway Patrol says it will conduct "maximum enforcement."

California DUI lawyers are also prepared to "step-up."

No. California DUI attorneys will feel drop in business as CHP cop leaves

California DUI attorney news

Thousands of Butte County motorists have probably been ticketed by California Highway Patrol officer Mike Backes, but he prefers to think those citations have helped saved countless injuries, and maybe a few lives.
After nearly 28 years with the CHP — 14 of them in Chico — Backes retired on Friday.

"Just to show you the kind of guy he is, Mike worked an overtime shift on his last day at a DUI checkpoint," said his boss, Capt. Scott Gillingwater.

Gillingwater was able to recap Backes outstanding record over the last 10 years, figuring that he issued about 3,000 citations, made 937 California Drunk Driving / DUI arrests, and 62 arrests for other felony offenses.

In his career, much of which was spent in Southern California, Gillingwater said Backes probably ticketed nearly 8,000 drivers.

Backes, 51, is a Marine Corps veteran who joined the CHP in 1980.

His first posting was in central Los Angeles. He moved on to San Diego, but later returned to work in south Los Angeles.

He transferred to the Yuba-Sutter CHP office in the early 1990s, moved on to Oroville, then came to the Chico office in 1993.

The veteran officer said he's seen many changes in the department during his tenure, most coming at times when new CHP commissioners were named by the governor.
Though some CHP officers doubted it would happen, Backes said the department has caught up with the latest technologies enjoyed by other law enforcement agencies.

Among Chico patrol officers, Backes is known for making an unusually high number of California DUI drunk driver arrests.

On Friday, some of his cohorts quipped that several California DUI lawyers would see a big drop in California DUI business due to Backes leaving.

DUI information for California attorneys & the public

California DUI Law enforcement asks public to report drunk drivers


As the holidays continue, California DUI law enforcement officials are urging party-goers to refrain from drinking alcohol and driving. This year's California DUI initiative includes a plea to the public to report California DUI drunk drivers. A new California DUI sign posted along Hwy. 25 for drivers heading west advises people to "Report Drunk Drivers Call 911."


"Drunk driving is the top priority for the California Highway Patrol and other motorists on the roads are one of the best weapons we have against drunk drivers," said Mike Brown, a CHP California DUI commissioner. "We're asking the public to report drunk drivers by calling 911 and providing the location and a complete description of the vehicle. This will help us know who we're looking for and where to look."


In addition, California DUI local agencies will be conducting sobriety checkpoints throughout the area during the holidays.


In 2006 there was one fatality caused by California DUI drunk driving and 50 non-fatal injuries, according to California Highway Patrol statistics.


"Deaths and injuries due to drunk drivers are a serious concern for every, said Christopher Murphy, the director of the Office of Traffic Safety. "These avoidable tragedies bring the issue to the forefront of traffic safety priorities for California."


While sobriety checkpoints serve as a deterrent from California DUI driving drunk, Murphy said, the public could help even more.


"To make an even greater impact, we're asking for the public throughout the state to serve as an extra set of eyes for law enforcement by calling 911 to report drunk drivers. Knowing that the public is also on the lookout for drunk drivers is a powerful deterrent."


The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration staff offer tips on how to report a California DUI drunk driver and how to spot a drunk driver.


People can report other drivers anonymously, but should be able to give the exact location of the vehicle, including the name of the road and cross streets. A description of the car make and model, color and license plate is also helpful, as well as an explanation of how the driver is driving. The administration staff warn against trying to stop a driver.


Some signs that a driver might be California DUI intoxicated include:
- Weaving or zigzagging across the road
- Driving on surfaces oth er than a designated roadway
- Swerving or
abruptly turning away from a generally straight course
- Turning abruptly or
illegally
- Driving slower than 10 mph below the speed limit
- Stopping without cause in a traffic lane
- Stopping
inappropriately
- Almost striking an
object or another
vehicle
- Following others too closely
- Drifting or moving in a straight line
- Erratic braking
- Driving into opposing or crossing traffic
- Signaling that is
inconsistent with
driving actions
- Slow response to
traffic signals,
including sudden
stops and delayed starts
- Turning with a wide
radius
- Straddling the center of the road or lane marker
- Appearing to be drunk (eye fixation, face close to windshield,
drinking in the vehicle)
- Driving with headlights off

new law makes california dui lawyers MADD

MADD is urging California lawmakers to implement a law that would require an ignition-locking device be placed in the vehicles of first-time DUI offenders.

On March 16, 1990, Judy Utter's life was shattered. Her 18-year-old daughter Jennifer was killed in a drunk driving crash in Carmichael.

"It was devastating," said Utter. "Jennifer was a very smart girl, ready to go to college. She wanted to be a teacher."

But there was no college for Jennifer. No wedding. No children. "None of the things you plan for," said her mother.

Today, Judy Utter works as a victims' advocate with MADD. "I know she (Jennifer) would have wanted me to work to prevent another family from going through this," Utter said.

Utter and MADD are lobbying to get California lawmakers to implement a law that would require alcohol ignition interlocks on the vehicles of first-time DUI offenders.

"It's a safety factor and it will save lives," said Utter.

Interlock devices prevent a vehicle's ignition from working if alcohol is detected. A person breaths into a handheld device. That breath is passed over an electrical chip and when there is alcohol in the breath, the ignition system won't work.

MADD Chief Executive Officer Charles Hurley said first time offenders should be treated harshly. "First offenders aren't really first offenders," said Hurley. "It's first time caught. The science indicates that people that have been arrested on a first offense have driven drunk 87 times before."

New Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, and Louisiana all have ignition interlock laws on the books for first time DUI offenders.

"This isn't Big Brother. This is a safety factor," said Utter. "Why can't we use our tools and technology in a safe way to prevent death and destruction?"

Utter said she'd like to see ignition interlock devices installed on every car, regardless of the driver's criminal record. "To me, it's a safety factor," Utter said. "We got used to wearing seatbelts. We are now accustomed to airbags. This is a safety issue."

MADD does not currently have any California lawmakers lined up to sponsor ignition interlock legislation. "We're working on it," said Hurley. "We think we could see strong bipartisan support."

Hurley said 75 percent of convicted drunk drivers continue to get behind the wheel because "they can." He said the ignition interlock devices would "stop that revolving door.

New California DUI / Drunk Driving Law for 2008

California DUI lawyer news

December 29, 2007

California Highway Patrol is once again in a maximum enforcement effort to get California DUI drunk drivers off the road.

You should also be aware of a new California DUI law that will take effect next year to further strengthen California DUI drunk driving laws.
Paula Martinez lost her husband Johnny to a drunk driver. The year was 1980.

"The guy was driving down the wrong side of the road with his lights off and hit him head on," said Paula Martinez whose husband was killed.
Each year, an estimated 17,000 people are killed in California DUI drunk driving crashes.
In October the governor signed a California DUI bill that got by-partisan support to strengthen the law against first time DUI offenders.
The California DUI bill requires everyone getting a driver's license to sign a statement indicating they know that driving under the influence is dangerous and could result in death. The statement goes on to read that if they choose to drive impaired and kill a person, they understand they can be charged with murder.
The California DUI bill had backing from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, AAA and the CHP.
Bernard Bray is a California DUI criminal defense attorney specializing in DUI cases. He says the California DUI law will give prosecutors one more piece of evidence in court.
"They've got a signed statement that driving under the influence is dangerous," said criminal defense attorney Bernard Bray.
In Paula's case, the man who killed her husband got less than a year in county jail.
The new law is one more education effort that could change the charges filed in fatal DUI crashes and the punishment.
"All the work that everyone has done and MADD has supported, I think it rally has cut down I don't think it will ever eliminate but it has helped slow it down," said Martinez.
The California DUI law requiring signed statements from driver's lenience applicants takes affect July 1st.
An ordinance sponsored by Oakland democrat Don Perata streamlines the process of impounding cars when drivers are arrested for suspected street racing, or reckless driving.
It will also be illegal for anyone under 18 to use any mobile communications devices while driving, including all cell phones and even hands free models.
It is also illegal now to smoke in the car when anyone under 18 is in it.

California DUI attorneys are worried this may be going too far.

famous California jockey has California DUI

California DUI / drunk driving / dwi lawyer news

The turbulent career of 45-year-old jockey Patrick Valenzuela took another downward turn Friday when the California Horse Racing Board terminated his conditional riding license after learning of a recent arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.

A statement issued by outgoing CHRB Executive Director Ingrid Fermin said that "consuming or being under the influence of alcohol is a violation" of the conditional license.


Valenzuela was arrested Dec. 20 at 2:48 a.m. and cited for driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of 0.8 or greater, according to Sgt. Cliff Mathews of the Upland Police Department.

Mathews said Valenzuela's blood-alcohol level won't be known until blood-test results are completed.

The police sergeant said the arrest The turbulent career of 45-year-old jockey Patrick Valenzuela took another downward turn Friday when the California Horse Racing Board terminated his conditional riding license after learning of a recent arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.

A statement issued by outgoing CHRB Executive Director Ingrid Fermin said that "consuming or being under the influence of alcohol is a violation" of the conditional license.


More trouble
click to enlarge
Valenzuela was arrested Dec. 20 at 2:48 a.m. and cited for driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of 0.8 or greater, according to Sgt. Cliff Mathews of the Upland Police Department.

Mathews said Valenzuela's blood-alcohol level won't be known until blood-test results are completed.

The police sergeant said the arrest took place in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant at Foothill and Benson in Upland. Mathews said the arresting officer was in the parking lot attending to another matter when he heard a crash involving a BMW driven by Valenzuela. The officer then noticed Valenzuela was trying to drive away with two flat tires on the driver's side.

Valenzuela, who lives in Arcadia, was released with a citation the next morning and ordered to appear in Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga on Feb. 21.

took place in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant at Foothill and Benson in Upland. Mathews said the arresting officer was in the parking lot attending to another matter when he heard a crash involving a BMW driven by Valenzuela. The officer then noticed Valenzuela was trying to drive away with two flat tires on the driver's side.

Valenzuela, who lives in Arcadia, was released with a citation the next morning and ordered to appear in Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga on Feb. 21.

California Auto Club's Guide To California's DUI Laws

California Auto Club's Guide To California's DUI Laws

California has some of the nation's strictest laws for driving under the influence (DUI). The DUI laws punish offenders for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, other drugs or a combination of alcohol and other drugs. Implementing California's laws has contributed significantly to the state's sharp declines in drinking and driving crashes.

An outgrowth of the continued toughening of California's DUI laws is that they have become increasingly complex. This online brochure explains and condenses state laws:


Section I describes the DUI offense.
Section II details the types of court-imposed (criminal) penalties meted out to offenders.
Section III discusses the administrative license suspension (ALS) system and the civil penalties the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) employs as part of this system. (The ALS system is designed to impose quick license suspensions, restrictions and revocations on offenders.)
Section IV details criminal DUI penalties for first and repeat offenses.
I. The DUI Offense

A DUI offense is both a criminal and civil matter.

Drivers caught with illegally high alcohol levels in their blood or breath or who refuse to take (and complete) a chemical test are dealt with in two ways. They are:

prosecuted in court for the criminal offense of DUI or refusal. Criminal penalties imposed include jail and prison, fines, treatment, probation and license suspension.
subject to licensing action by the DMV (as part of the state's ALS system) for the civil offenses of driving in excess of the fixed "per se" (see below) alcohol limit or refusing a chemical test.
DUI drivers can be prosecuted for violating either the state's "per se" or "presumptive" alcohol limit or both limits.


Drivers who exceed the per se breath or blood alcohol content (BAC) limit are prosecuted solely for having an amount of alcohol in their system greater than that permitted by law. The driver's level of impairment is not at issue. Drivers are guilty of DUI simply for having violated the per se ("in and of itself") BAC limit. California's per se BAC limits (see Table 1) vary depending on the driver's age, whether he or she is a commercial driver, and whether the case is adjudicated in a court (criminally) or by the DMV (civilly).

Table 1: California's Per Se BAC Limits

Characteristic Criminal Offenses Civil Offenses
Driver's Age
Under 21 .05% .01%
21 and Over .08% .08%
Commercial
Driver .04% .08%


Drivers who exceed the presumptive BAC limit are presumed to have been under the influence of alcohol when driving, that is, it is assumed their faculties for driving were impaired. California's presumptive BAC limit is .08% (about four drinks in an hour for a 160-pound male). BAC levels are established from results of law enforcement officers' chemical tests. Drivers exceeding this presumptive limit are presumed to have been under the influence. Still, they can attempt to prove in court that - despite having had an incriminating BAC - they were not physically impaired when driving.


Drivers whose BAC does not exceed the presumptive BAC limits can still be convicted of DUI if other evidence shows their abilities were impaired.


Courts frequently prosecute arrestees for violating both the per se and presumptive statutes. If evidence from the BAC test is strong, it promotes conviction on the less complex per se charge; if BAC test evidence is not strong, prosecutors will still attempt to use sobriety test evidence to prove that the defendant was physically impaired, and guilty of the presumptive DUI charge.


Defendants convicted of both a presumptive and per se charge are punished for only one of these charges.

Drivers who refuse to take (and complete) a chemical test for DUI still receive severe punishment.

According to California's Implied Consent law, drivers are required to submit to and complete a chemical test when requested to by a law enforcement officer. Consequences of refusing the chemical test are severe, including:

receiving license sanctions more harsh than for those convicted of DUI. Even those found not guilty of DUI in court receive a license suspension through the state's ALS system
facing the likelihood of convictions for both DUI and the test refusal. Those who refuse a chemical test and are later convicted of DUI are further punished by:
receiving all standard DUI penalties
losing the possibility of a judge ordering probation as a substitute for jail
receiving longer jail sentences (see Section IV for length of enhanced sentences)
II. Court-Imposed Penalties

Court-imposed DUI penalties vary in some important ways:

Misdemeanor offenses are punished less severely than felonies.
Misdemeanor DUI offenses (California Vehicle Code [CVC] section 23152) typically do not involve injuries; felony DUI offenses (CVC 23153) typically do. In a felony DUI, someone other than the driver was injured or killed as a result of the offense. Offenders convicted of a misdemeanor can be sentenced to jail (but not prison) and fined up to $1,000; offenders convicted of a felony can be sentenced to prison and fined more than $1,000.


Subsequent offenses are punished more severely than previous offenses.

A second, third or subsequent offense is one that occurs within seven years of a prior DUI offense - or ten years if the prior was a felony. A prior alcohol-involved reckless driving guilty plea is counted as a prior DUI conviction when the court determines punishments.

Mandated Penalties and Judicial Discretion

The chart in Section IV lists state-mandated criminal penalties. State law mandates most minimum DUI offender sanctions. Judges have discretion, however, over whether to apply sanctions other than those mandated in the chart or increase offenders sanctions to the maximum allowed in each category.

For example, for first offense misdemeanor DUI, judges have the discretion to sentence offenders to jail or grant probation. As the chart shows, if the judge decides to impose a 48-hour jail sentence, probation must also be used. Additionally, the judge must impose at least the minimum listed offense fine, penalty assessment, restitution, license suspension period and treatment program duration. Vehicle impoundment and ignition interlock installation are not mandated, although they can be imposed by judicial order.

Criminal Sanctions

Drivers convicted of misdemeanor or felony DUI can receive:

County jail or state prison
Fine, penalty assessment and restitution
Drinking and driving treatment
Vehicle impoundment or forfeiture
License restriction, suspension or revocation
Ignition interlock device requirement
Probation
Jail and Prison

A DUI conviction typically results in a mandatory sentence ranging from 48 hours in jail to four years in prison. The sole exception is for a misdemeanor first offense, where a judge can substitute a fine, require a treatment program and levy a 90-day license restriction.

Jail and prison sentences are extended for certain "enhancing" circumstances. (See Section IV for length of enhanced sentences.) Enhancing circumstances are:

JAIL

driving at "excessive speed" (30 mph above the lawful freeway speed or 20 mph above the lawful speed on other roadways)
refusing to take a chemical test
driving with a minor passenger (under age 14) in the vehicle. (Applies to misdemeanor DUI offenses only.)
PRISON


multiple victims (other than the driver). Sentences are enhanced by one year for each victim (up to three)
hit and run, if fleeing the scene after vehicular manslaughter.

Fine, Penalty Assessment and Restitution

Offenders are commonly ordered to pay three types of fines: an offense fine, a penalty assessment, and restitution. (See Section IV for specific amounts.)

Misdemeanor offense fines range from $390 to $1,000; felony offense fines from $390 to $5000.
Penalty Assessments are 170% of the offense fine, that is, $17 extra for each $10 of offense fine imposed
Restitution fines compensate the injuries and losses of victims. Fines range from $100 to $10,000.
Treatment

Convicted DUI offenders may be ordered to attend and complete an alcohol and/or drug treatment program. Drivers suspended for a DUI conviction must complete a drinking driving treatment program prior to license reinstatement.

Repeat offenders granted probation must complete a program for the number of months specified in the chart in Section IV.

Offenders receive no credit for program activities prior to the current violation.

Vehicle Impoundment and Forfeiture

The court can order that the vehicle of a convicted DUI offender be impounded if the offender is its registered owner. A judge can order that an impounded vehicle be forfeited - declared a "nuisance" and sold. Impounds can also be imposed on vehicle owners under 21 (even if not in the vehicle) if a driver or passenger of his or her vehicle is under 21 and illegally possesses alcohol.

License Restriction, Suspension and Revocation

A driver license can be:

Restricted - limiting when and under what circumstances drivers can use a vehicle. Restrictions typically include: driving only to and from work or treatment, and as required by work; maintaining financial responsibility (insurance)
Suspended - withdrawn for a specified period or until some required condition (such as financial responsibility) is met
Revoked - terminated, requiring drivers to reapply for a license after their revocation period.

Commercial vehicle operators convicted of DUI have their license "disqualified," that is, they are prohibited from operating commercial vehicles. A suspension or revocation of a commercial license also applies to the driver's non-commercial license.

Courts can postpone the start of a DUI offender's license suspension or revocation period until after imprisonment. Postponement is typically applied to repeat DUI offenses, DUI offenses involving multiple victims, and hit and run convictions.

Drivers under 21 convicted of DUI (or alcohol-related reckless driving) have their licenses suspended for an additional one-year period, over and above the license suspension they receive for DUI. Drivers under 18 convicted of adult-level DUI (.08% BAC or greater) have their licenses revoked for: one year; until they reach 18; or the period prescribed for the offense-whichever of these three is longest. License reinstatement costs $100 and requires proof of financial responsibility. Youths aged 13-20 convicted of any alcohol-related offense (even those not involving driving) have their first license delayed for a year.

Ignition Interlock Device

For first-time offenders, courts may choose to impose the installation and maintenance of a certified ignition interlock device (which prevents a vehicle from being started if the driver has alcohol in his or her system). For second and other repeat offenders, the device is mandatory. Courts require the device from one to three years once the driver license is restored.

Probation

Court-ordered probation for DUI offenders lasts three to five years. During probation, offenders must not:

commit any criminal offense
drive with any measurable alcohol in their blood
refuse to submit to a chemical test upon request
fail to pay a fine, assessment or restitution
III. Administrative License Suspension (ALS) System

ALS Sanctions

In addition to sanctions imposed as a result of a court conviction, DUI offenders face administrative license actions (suspensions and revocations) by the DMV. These actions are mandatory (the DMV must apply them on violators) and independent of any criminal penalties imposed by a court. Table 2 summarizes license suspensions and revocations imposed on DUI drivers.

Table 2: DMV License Suspensions and Revocations

Nature of Offense First Second Third (or more)
Driver Under 21,
BAC .01% or more 1 year or more 1 year or more 1 year or more
Driver 21 and Over
BAC .08% or more 1 year or more 1 year or more 1 year or more
Chemical Test
Refusal 1 year 2 years*
(Revocation) 3 years*
(Revocation)
*This punishment for a second "test refusal" also applies
if prior offenses were for DUI or were DUI-related.
ALS Process

The administrative license suspension process begins when a driver is cited for DUI. The driver license is taken on the spot by the arresting law enforcement officer if the driver:

violates the civil per se laws (as shown in Table 1: .01% for drivers under 21; .08% for drivers 21 or over)
refuses a chemical test requested by an officer
Licensed offenders are then served with a DMV order of suspension or revocation which serves as a 30-day license. The suspension or revocation takes effect in 30 days. Within 10 days from the citation date, drivers can request a DMV hearing. At the DMV hearing, only a limited number of issues may be considered. These are whether:


the officer had reasonable cause to believe the driver was driving a vehicle with an illegally high BAC
the driver was arrested (or "lawfully detained" if age 21 or less)
the driver refused a chemical test or a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test
the driver was informed that a refusal would result in suspension or revocation


ALS hearings are independent of criminal prosecutions. That is, proceedings and findings in one venue do not affect proceedings and findings in the other. For example, if a defendant's charges are dropped in court, this decision has no effect on the determination made at an ALS hearing. An important exception exists, however: a not guilty verdict in a criminal case overturns an ALS determination and its sanctions.

Learn more about the differences between felony and misdemeanor DUI by contacting a California DUI lawyer.

Checkpoint bulletin - California DUI update

California DUI attorney checkpoint warning!

California DUI lawyers want to help.

A California DUI Drunk Driving checkpoint to catch motorists impaired by alcohol or drugs will be in effect on New Year's Eve in Rialto, California DUI police announced Friday.
California DUI Officers will also be reviewing driver's licenses at the California DUI checkpoint, which will run from 6 p.m. to 3 a.m. at an undisclosed location in the city.

Vehicles will be checked and drivers who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs will be arrested for California DUI, police said in a press release.

The California DUI checkpoint is being conducted to identify offenders and get them off the street, as well as educate the public on the dangers of California DUI impaired driving and the need for designated drivers, police said.

Members of the public are encouraged to call 9-1-1 if they see a suspected California DUI impaired driver.

Funding for the California DUI checkpoint is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Prevention of California DUI is the goal

California dui criminal defense attorney info

When it comes to California DUI drunk driving, most law enforcement professionals will tell you the key is prevention.

"When we as an organization think of how we can positively impact people's lives," said San Bernardino police Lt. Scott Paterson. "One way is by reducing the number of people driving while intoxicated."

Paterson has an especially tragic relationship with the dangers of the roads on holidays. On Mother's Day 2000, the veteran officer's 18-year-old daughter was killed in a non-alcohol-related wreck.

"To lose a loved one in a senseless car collision is unbelievably tragic," Paterson said.

And the Police Department, in conjunction with local businesses and the state, has a plan it hopes will save lives this holiday season.

Through Jan. 2, the San Bernardino Police Department has ramped up DUI enforcement in a program dubbed Operation Safe Holidays.

The goal of the program is to reduce collisions, injuries and deaths related to impaired driving issues, Paterson said.

The program consists of six evening checkpoints and saturation patrol areas, where police increase their patrols to spot impaired drivers.

In addition, the multipronged program boasts an education campaign through local radio and partnerships with local taxi and tow services to provide rides to people too impaired to drive home, Paterson said.

Other area law enforcement agencies are running similar programs this holiday season, including the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol and Colton, Rialto and Redlands police departments.
Anheuser-Busch, the brewer, is also a major program sponsor, Paterson said.

The program has been in place for years, Paterson said.

"I don't know how many lives have been saved," Paterson said. "But I can say thousands of people have been given rides home (instead of driving drunk)."

California dui lawyers have their stories, too.

Rebecca De Mornay faces California DUI

California DUI attorney news

Actress Rebecca De Mornay has been charged with misdemeanor California DUI drunk driving following her arrest two months ago.

The "Risky Business" actress was charged with one count of California DUI driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and one count of California DUI driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08, a Los Angeles District Attorney's California DUI spokeswoman said Thursday.

De Mornay was arrested Oct. 30 for a traffic violation in Beverly Hills when officers smelled alcohol on her breath. She is scheduled to be arraigned Monday.

Calls to her representatives weren't immediately returned. No California DUI lawyer has spoke on her behalf.

De Mornay is best known for playing the prostitute who befriends Tom Cruise's high school student in the 1983 film "Risky Business." Her other screen credits include "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle," "Backdraft" and "Lords of Dogtown." She recently appeared in the HBO drama "John From Cincinnati" which was quickly canceled.

CHP's STOP DUI in California program

California DUI criminal defense attorney news from CHP

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - December 28, 2007 07-67



CHP STATEWIDE DUI ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM



The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has secured a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration entitled, “Statewide Enforcement and Education Operations Targeting DUI (STOP DUI) II.” This grant will provide funding for DUI enforcement in an effort to remove impaired drivers from California’s roadways. CHP personnel will be deployed on an overtime basis with the mission of apprehending impaired drivers. In addition to enforcing DUI laws, officers will also enforce all other traffic safety laws such as, speeding, unsafe passing, and occupant restraint violations.



Utilizing project-funded overtime, the CHP will conduct a minimum of 100 sobriety/driver license checkpoints, 65 DUI task force operations and deploy DUI roving enforcement patrol operations statewide. The enforcement activities will be conducted between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008.



The CHP is urging motorists to help reduce the incidence of DUI fatalities and injuries by not drinking and driving. Let’s all do our best to keep California roadways safe in 2008.

Mischa Barton arrested among flurry of California DUI holiday busts

California DUI attorney news

Former OC star and ex-girlfriend of Cisco “saggy balls” Adler, Mischa Barton was pulled over for California DUI drunk driving early this morning around 3:00am in West Hollywood on the corner of Santa Monica and La Cienega.

Barton was arrested for DUI, driving on a suspended license, and possession of illegal narcotics. A press release from the L.A. County Sheriff’s department stated, " she was seen straddling two lanes of traffic and failed to signal when making a turn." When deputies pulled her over, they determined that she "was an unlicensed driver and was California DUI - driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage." Mischa is being held on 10,000 dollars bail and is reportedly being “very cooperative”. And just like Nicole, Paris and Lindsay, her mugshot seems like any other photo op.

This isn’t the first sign of trouble for Barton who was hospitalized in May after mixing antibiotics and alcohol. Her nineteen-year old younger sister, Hania, went into rehab earlier this year for addiction to painkillers.

California DUI lawyer info

California DUI Arrest numbers during the holiday period on suspicion of DUI continue to rise throughout the Bay Area.
Some 125 California DUI law enforcement agencies are on the streets and freeways throughout the area this month to apprehend those who choose to California DUI - drive while under the influence, and the agencies will continue the saturation through New Year's Day.

The California DUI effort is launched by the Bay Area Regional AVOID program.

During the first 12 days of the California DUI campaign -- from 12:01 a.m. Dec. 14 through midnight Dec. 25, officers from the various law enforcement agencies reported arresting 2,047 people on suspicion of California DUI / DWI/ Drunk Driving / driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This is up appreciably from the same period in 2006. During the first 12 days of the California DUI AVOID campaign in 2006, California DUI officers had arrested 1,920 people in connection with DUI.

Unfortunately, California DUI officials said, there have been four deaths attributed to an impaired driver on Bay Area roadways.

The numbers are provisional, as a number of the California DUI agencies have not reported.

For more California DUI information, go online to www.californiaavoid.org.

California DUI arrests in San Diego and Northern California

California DUI attorneys ready to help:

December 27, 2007



Four people were killed on the county's roads during the Christmas holiday weekend, three more than last year, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The CHP also arrested 118 people for California DUI driving under the influence in San Diego County, 12 more than last year.

Statewide, the agency reported 27 people died on the highways, one less than last Christmas, but arrests for California DUI driving under the influence went up by 310 to 1,661.



An effort by 31 California DUI law enforcement agencies throughout the north state to crack down on California DUI drunk drivers has resulted in nearly 200 California DUI arrests since mid-December.
The number of California DUI arrests is up from the last year, but accidents related to intoxicated driving are down.

California DUI Arrests by participating counties as of Christmas night were:


Shasta — 85

Butte — 60

Glenn — 29

Tehama — 12

Siskiyou — 12


No DUI-related holiday traffic deaths have been reported in the five north state counties, Niemeth said.

A grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety covers the cost of overtime to place officers on the road specifically looking for impaired drivers, according to Niemeth.

The regional California DUI crackdown will continue through New Year's Day.


Tracy California DUI police will hold a DUI checkpoint on Saturday night to deter holiday revelers from driving drunk.

California DUI Officers will attempt to stop every passing vehicle from 7 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Sunday in areas where California DUI / drunk driving could be a problem.

People planning on going out and drinking are encouraged to find a designated driver, and those who see impaired California DUI drivers on the road are encouraged to California DUI alert authorities.

California DUI attorneys ready to help:

December 27, 2007

California DUI cop goes to jail for drunk driving

California DUI Drunk-driving arrests under law enforcement agencies’ campaign originally known as “Avoid the 13″ are up so far this year, the California Highway Patrol reports. In the first 12 days of the holiday season, California DUI officers have arrest 2,047 people for California DUI driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, a 6 percent increase from the 1,920 arrests for the same period last year. This year 125 California DUI agencies throughout the nine Bay Area counties are participating in the campaign, which began at 12:01 a.m. Dec. 14 and continues through midnight Tuesday.

One California DUI incident involving an alleged drunk driver that so far has not led to an arrest involves a San Jose police officer who was driving the wrong way on Highway 17 in the Santa Cruz Mountains when he hit another vehicle. People in the other vehicle as well as the off-duty officer were injured, according to the CHP. The officer reportedly failed a field sobriety test but has not yet been arrested for California DUI. What a coincidence, or?

The police officer faces felony drunk driving charges in connection to a head-on collision.

The California Highway Patrol has asked the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office to charge Officer Fidel Guerrero, 35, with California DUI driving under the influence, causing injury and driving on the wrong side of the highway.

Investigators say Guerrero was speeding on the wrong side of Highway 17 on the way to Santa Cruz on Sunday when the off-duty officer smashed head-on into a minivan.

California DUI update for CHP, Bakersfield and the Desert

California DUI attorney news

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

California dui criminal lawyers will be busy.

California DUI law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department are preparing for a DUI crackdown through the holiday season. The California DUI effort will include a significant increase in officers on the streets in the form of California DUI saturation patrols and sCalifornia DUI obriety checkpoints.

This year California DUI law enforcement is asking for the public's help.

"Drunk driving is the top priority for the California Highway Patrol and other motorists on the roads are one of the best weapons we have against drunk drivers," said CHP Commissioner Mike Brown. "We're asking the public to report drunk drivers by calling 911 and providing the location and a complete description of the vehicle. This will help us know who we're looking for and where to look."

Some of the features of a California DUI / drunk driver, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, include drivers turning with a wide radius, straddling the center of the road or lane marker, almost striking an object or another vehicle, weaving and zigzagging across the road, turning abruptly or illegally, driving slower than 10 mph below the speed limit, following others too closely, drifting or moving in a straight line at an angle and erratic braking, driving into opposing or crossing traffic and driving with the headlights off.

Last year, 1,597 people were killed and 31,099 were injured in alcohol-related crashes in California, according to the state Office of Traffic Safety. Los Angeles County had the greatest number of deaths with 300. Another 7,718 people were injured in this county.

"Deaths and injuries due to drunk drivers are a serious concern for everyone," said state Office of Traffic Safety Director Christopher J. Murphy. "These avoidable tragedies bring the issue to the forefront of traffic safety priorities for California ... Knowing that the public is also on the lookout for drunk drivers is a powerful deterrent."


Dozens of people were arrested for California DUI - driving under the influence over the Christmas holiday. The Bakersfield office of the California Highway Patrol reported 66 California DUI Drunk Driving / DWI arrests in the local area beginning on Friday, Dec. 21 and running through midnight Dec. 25.

Officials said there were no fatalities linked to drinking and driving for the same period.

California DUI Law enforcement has been operating under their maximum enforcement period with every available California DUI officer on county roadways.

There were several California DUI checkpoints set up in and around the Bakersfield area during the holiday weekend.


The Desert Hot Springs Police Department recently received a $8,341 grant from the Office of Traffic Safety to conduct more California DUI sobriety checkpoints, according to the department. The grant will be specifically used for efforts in catching those driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs / California DUI .

Cost of a California Drunk Driving Charge

California DUI lawyer news

Cost of a DUI conviction adds up

December 26, 2007

Drinking and driving can be costly - very costly if you end up with a California DUI .

The joyful gatherings of the holiday season often include alcohol, but the consequences of driving drunk or impaired can be deadly. In 2006, Monterey County saw 662 alcohol-related collisions, which resulted in 16 people killed and 312 injured.

In 2006, although only 9 percent of traffic crashes were alcohol-related, they accounted for 41 percent of all traffic fatalities. Children are the most vulnerable - more than half of the 414 children 14 or younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 were riding with a drinking driver.

It is possible, however, to measure the financial costs for the California DUI drinking driver - and they can exceed $5,000 to $10,000. That doesn't cover medical costs, vehicle property damage and the guilt if someone is hurt.

A California DUI / DWI has serious consequences and can put you in jail.

A driver under 21 with a blood alcohol reading of 0.01 or higher may have his or her license revoked. With a blood alcohol reading of 0.05 or above, a driver under 21 can be arrested and have his or her license suspended or revoked.

If you are over 21, and your blood alcohol reading is 0.08 or more, your driver's license will be immediately taken away and you will be arrested for DUI. A 30-day temporary license will be issued, which will allow time for a review and appeal. If you refuse to take a blood or breath test, your license will be suspended for one year.

If you took the California DUI chemical test, your license can also be suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles for four months. A second offense within 10 years can result in a one-year suspension. If you refused the chemical test, your license will be suspended for one year. A second offense within 10 years results in a two-year suspension of your license, and a third offense in 10 years means a three-year suspension.

In addition to the DMV penalties, you also face California DUI court action. On your first DUI conviction you could serve 96 hours to six months in jail. After release, you could serve three to five years of probation. The court may also suspend your license for six months and require you to complete a DUI program. The length of the program vary.

A DUI means lost time at work for jail and court appearances. It also means a price tag of $5,000 to $10,000 or more, which may include fees for vehicle towing, storage, booking and fingerprinting, car insurance increases, DUI fine, an alcohol assessment for the court system, DUI victims fund, community service fund and DUI classes.

If you use a good California DUI attorney,you have a chance.

The only way to avoid a California DUI / drunk driving is to not drink and drive. If you do drink, have a designated driver, call a cab or use public transportation, sleep at the party or get a taxi to a motel.

1,536 California DUI CHP arrests since Dec. 14

California DUI attorney update

Holiday California DUI drunken driving arrests in Santa Clara County are up 14 percent over last year and one person has died in an alcohol-related crash, California DUI officials said.

The man who died, identified only as a 28-year-old Palo Alto man, was killed in a roll-over crash in the Santa Cruz mountains on Monday afternoon, said the county's anti-drunken driving campaign spokeswoman, Jan Ford.

Throughout the county, from midday Christmas Eve to Christmas morning, California DUI police arrested 39 people on suspicion of California DUI driving under the influence, bringing the total California DUI arrests for the holiday period to 522, Ford said. Last year at that point, California DUI officers had arrested 498 California DUI people; two people had died in alcohol-related crashes.

Statewide, the California Highway Patrol alone has arrested 1,536 drivers since Dec. 14 so 1536 folks will need California DUI lawyers.

California State DUI stats

California DUI attorney news

Christmas, 2007

California Highway Patrol officers have arrested 236 Bay Area motorists for California DUI driving under the influence during the CHP's maximum California DUI enforcement period so far this holiday season, CHP spokesman Officer Mike Davis said Tuesday.

Statewide, CHP California DUI officers have arrested 1,536 drivers for DUI offenses.

Santa in G-String Arrested for California DUI

California DUI lawyer news

Santa in G-String Arrested on DUI Charge

December 25, 2007

LOS ANGELES California Drunk Driving news

Some gifts from Kris Kringle are better kept wrapped.

A man in a Santa hat was arrested Sunday night for investigation of California DUI / DWI / drunk driving after he was spotted outside Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood wearing a wig, a red lace camisole and a purple G-string, police said.

"We are pretty sure this is not the Santa Claus," Deputy Chief Ken Garner said.

The suspect was booked into jail after his blood-alcohol level measured just above the state's legal limit of .08, police said. He was later released on $5,000 bail.

The man, who is 6 feet 4 inches tall and weighs 280 pounds, also wore black leg warmers and black shoes. His car was towed to an impound yard, police said.

His California DUI attorney pulled up in a big red vehicle resembling a sled two hours after the Santa was taken into custody.

More Santa Clara DUI cases, less DUI cases in Monterey, California this year

California DUI criminal defense attorney update

California DUI / Drunk Driving arrests in Santa Clara County are up so far this holiday season
12/24/2007

Santa Clara County California DUI officers have pulled more than 480 suspected California DUI drunk drivers off the road this holiday season as part of a campaign to lower roadway deaths - an increase over last year.
At this time in 2006, California DUI officers in the South Bay had pulled in 442 drivers suspected of being under the influence. Two years ago, officers had arrested 336.

Since Dec. 14, this year's dragnet has snagged 483 suspected California DUI drunk drivers. No one has died in an alcohol-fueled crash since then, California DUI Avoid the 13 spokeswoman Jan Ford said.

The Avoid the 13 campaign, named after the number of participating California DUI law enforcement agencies in an area, originated in the county in 1973, Ford said. That year, there were 13 California DUI alcohol-related roadway deaths.

The California DUI program, which continues through New Year's Day, has since gone statewide.

Throughout the Bay Area, California DUI officers from 125 different agencies have arrested 1,872 people. Three people died in crashes involving California DUI / impaired drivers on Bay Area roads.

Statewide, California Highway Patrol California DUI officers alone have nabbed 1,303 people for California DUI driving under the influence and 18 people have died in alcohol-related crashes on the state's highways. Last year, California DUI officers had arrested 1,221 California DUI persons at this point and 25 had died.




California DUI Drunk Driving arrests way down in Monterey County this holiday season

On the day before Christmas, just past the halfway point in a 19-day crackdown on impaired drivers, the Avoid the 18 campaign in Monterey County has made 41 California DUI / DWI arrests.

Monterey County California DUI / drunk driving arrests were at 107 by this point last year.

Avoid the 18, a holiday-season campaign to prevent California DUI crashes, is named for the number of California DUI agencies involved in Monterey County.

California DUI CHP officers will flood the freeways today and Christmas Day, assigning nearly all their available California DUI officers to the road.

All 41 countywide police California DUI drunk driving DWI crackdowns in the state are funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and are sponsored by the local association of law enforcement executives.

California statewide DUI statistics for Christmas weekend

California DUI lawyer news

SACRAMENTO – Four of the eight young adults injured Wednesday night after being hit by an alleged California DUI drunk driver at Whitney and Eastern avenues remained hospitalized Sunday night.

At Mercy San Juan Medical Center, Jessica Mendoza, 18, was in critical condition and Bart Kirby, 19, was in fair condition. At UC Davis Medical Center, Benjamin Harrington, 18, was in fair condition and Michael Hewitt, 20, was in good condition.

Two of the injured teens were discharged from the hospital Sunday: Ian Smith and Jason Doverspike, both 18, were sent home from UC Davis and Kaiser Permanente North, respectively.


A man was killed Sunday after he crashed his Honda Accord into a parked John Deere tractor.

According to California Highway Patrol officers, a Hispanic male in his twenties, was driving at a high rate of speed, just before 6 p.m.

Officials say he failed to negotiate a turn while heading eastbound on American Avenue, north of Fowler.

The car slammed into the tractor and the man was found dead on the scene.

No other people were involved in the DUI crash.

Officials say they found several open alcohol containers in the vehicle and do believe the driver was under the influence of alcohol, California DUI.


SAN DIEGO - There was one traffic person was killed on San Diego County highways during the first 36 hours of the Christmas holiday weekend, the California Highway Patrol said today.

During the comparable reporting period last year, there was also one fatality reported in the county, the CHP said.

Statewide, there were 13 fatalities in the first day and a hald of the holiday period this year, down from last year's total of 20.


In San Diego County, CHP officers this year made accounted for 76 arrests for drunken driving -- the same amount as last year.

Statewide this year, there were 973 DUI arrests by state officers, in comparison to 953 last year.

Although the fatality totals are for all police jurisdictions in California, the CHP's drunk driving totals do not include those arrested by various city police departments or county sheriff's offices across the state.



December 24, 2007 - 10:21AM
A weekend crack-down on drunken drivers ended with 137 arrests, bringing the two-week total to 463 arrests — a 54 percent increase from last year, officials said Monday.

Over the weekend, a sobriety checkpoint on Hesperia Road in Victorville screened 469 vehicles. Of those, 96 were stopped for various violations, according to Sgt. John Mattke of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.

In all, 14 DUI arrests were made. One of them was found to have a blood alcohol level of .202, more than twice the legal limit officials said.

During the investigation of this person's arrest, deputies found he had driven nearly 50 miles from San Bernardino to Victorville after he finished drinking officials said. An open 18 pack of beer was also located in his vehicle.

Another driver was arrested for his fourth DUI in the last five years, making this one a felony, officials said.

The goal of the Sobriety Checkpoint team was to educate the public about the dangers of driving while impaired.

Although deputies arrested 14 drivers for DUI, they were surprised at the large number of designated drivers that drove through the checkpoint. This is very encouraging to deputies because it confirms that their hard work is making a difference and people are listening to the message and choosing a designated driver.

The task force reminds everyone hosting a New Year’s Eve celebration to plan on securing designated drivers for safe rides home.

The AVOID task force consists of a coalition of 25 agencies in the County of San Bernardino, including CHP and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The coalition is funded through a grant awarded to the City of Victorville from the California Office of Traffic Safety.


LOS ANGELES -- The California Highway Patrol is reporting that drunken driving arrests are up statewide from this time last year.

The CHP says its officers arrested 1,303 drivers for driving under the influence from 6 p.m. Friday through 6 this morning. There were 1,221 arrests in the same period last year.

The CHP reports that fatalities for that period decreased from 25 last year to 18 this year.



BAKERSFIELD -- The Avoid 18 task force patrolled a sobriety checkpoint, netting several arrests and impounding dozens of cars.

Two drivers were arrested for DUI early Friday evening, one under the influence of alcohol and a stimulant, the other under the influence of paint fumes.


Many other drivers were cited for driving with a suspended license or with no license at all, and have their vehicles impounded.

18 local law enforcement agencies have teamed up for the task force this holiday season to make sure drivers are not drinking and driving.

Other enforcement efforts in different communities will also take place during the holiday season.

California DUI attorneys are available today.

Riverside California DUI attorney news

California DUI lawyer news for Christmas

Forget cell phone calls and text messaging: Police say that motorist-to-motorist warnings don't seem to diminish the effectiveness of holiday California DUI sobriety checkpoints and the roving California DUI drunken-driver hunts they call saturation patrols.

"We typically average ... around 10 California DUI arrests a night," Sgt. John Mattke said of the California DUI checkpoints he sets up for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.

"But I generally put a California DUI saturation patrol around my checkpoint. So if there's a bar down the street ... we're going to catch some of them."

Most cities wage the California DUI battle on three fronts. California DUI Saturation patrols are very effective at catching California DUI drunken drivers, Mattke said.

California DUI Checkpoints catch perhaps half as many drunks as the patrols, but are extremely visible evidence that the California DUI cops are out in force. California DUI Officers say that deters California DUI drunk driving.

The third element is California DUI public education, ranging from fliers that warn of the penalties for DUI to announcements of impending California DUI checkpoints and California Drunk Driving saturation patrols.

During the last two weeks of December, at least 14 California DUI checkpoints and 71 saturation patrols are scheduled throughout San Bernardino County, said Mattke, who coordinates large-scale holiday California DUI crackdowns throughout the county.

In Riverside County, there is no coordinator and no cumulative count, but a dozen cities -- from Blythe to Corona and from Banning to Murrieta -- will be conducting California DUI checkpoints and California Drunk Driving patrols, said Chris Cochran, of the state Office of Traffic Safety.

Most are done on Friday and Saturday nights during what California DUI police say are the largest anti-DUI efforts of the year.

On Friday, Riverside police were scheduled to conduct a California DUI checkpoint and San Bernardino police planned to hold California DUI saturation patrols.

Aimed at reducing the number of potentially fatal DUI wrecks, and funded by federal grants, the annual California DUI crackdowns are expected at this time of the year.

Whether the California DUI checkpoints and hunts work is a matter of how success is measured. Arrests are up, but so are DUI-related fatalities.

Bodies and bottom lines

Fatalities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties have increased about 38 percent, from about 110 in 2002 to more than 150 in 2006.

The reasons are unclear.

"Part of it: There has been an increase in population," said Cochran, who believes that a larger population includes more drunken drivers. "But that's not the whole (answer), and there have been no scientific studies on it."

This season's big push is spurred in part by $100 million in federal grants that were distributed during fiscal year 2006-07 throughout the state by the Office of Traffic Safety.

"Over time, (the statewide total) increases like inflation," said Cochran.

"But the amount varies year to year."

The total for fiscal year 2007-08 dropped to $70 million, he said.

However, since grants run from one to three years, many cities DUI programs continue to be well funded.

San Bernardino is in the middle of a $1 million two-year grant that has allowed the city to add four motorcycle officers at night.

"Before, we were just a dayshift, for the most part," said traffic Sgt. Jarrod Burguan

With the help of grants, San Bernardino police have scheduled six holiday anti-DUI programs: four California DUI saturation patrols and two California DUI checkpoints.

It will be hard to gauge how successful the efforts are in reducing drunken-driving injuries and fatalities.

"You never know how effective you were," Burguan said, "because you don't know what would have happened if you hadn't done it."

Cat and mouse

Like most police work, DUI efforts are altered periodically to adapt to changing times.

"Instant-messaging has made it difficult for us because it gives up our (checkpoint) locations so quickly," said Capt. Andy Hall, a past commander of anti-DUI efforts in Fresno.

"We still do checkpoints. But in addition, ... we stake out bars.

"We have undercover officers in the parking lot. If (exiting bar patrons) are stumbling drunk, we don't let them get to their cars."

Officers also watch bar patrons get behind the wheel, quickly evaluate their driving and decide whether to stop and arrest them.

In recent years, Fresno has attracted national attention because of its emphasis on anti-drunken-driving efforts, which Hall said sometimes included a California DUI checkpoint-a-day during December.

"At our high point, we were doing almost 100 a year," he said.

"I think we've backed it down to 75 a year. Most (cities) do maybe 12."

Under Hall's direction, Fresno California DUI police also focused on changing their own officers' attitudes toward California DUI drunk driving.

California DUI Checkpoint - statewide status

DUI checkpoint info around California

December 22, 2007

California DUI lawyer update

4 Arrested, 60 Cited At Riverside DUI Checkpoint

A California DUI checkpoint in Riverside targeting drunk and unsafe drivers led to the arrest of four California DUI motorists. Almost 60 others were cited for licensing violations -- some of them severe enough to warrant impounding vehicles, authorities stated Saturday.

Approximately 1,500 vehicles passed through the California DUI checkpoint Friday night near the intersection of Arlington and Streeter Avenues, according to Riverside police Sgt. Skip Showalter.

Between 6 p.m. and midnight, two motorists were arrested for alleged California DUI drunken driving, a third was arrested on a felony narcotics warrant and a fourth was arrested on suspicion of marijuana possession, Showalter said.

Fifty-seven motorists received license-related citations and 47 vehicles were impounded, he said.

California DUI Patrol officers were assisted by volunteers and Police Explorers during the operation, funding for which came out of a $23,163 grant awarded to the city this month by the California Office of Traffic Safety, Showalter said.

The California DUI grant is expected to support an unspecified number of DUI enforcement operations until September, 2008.

In addition to Riverside, six other Riverside County municipalities received OTS California DUI grants. They included: Banning, $23,369; Coachella, $27,012; Corona, $19,819; Desert Hot Springs, $8,431; Norco, $76,600; Palm Desert, $20,227; and Perris, $41,996.

Just under 1,600 people died last year -- and more than 31,000 were injured -- in drug- and California DUI alcohol-related accidents across the state, according to the Office of Traffic Safety.


Sheriff's deputies arrested four people on suspicion of California DUI driving under the influence during a California DUI sobriety checkpoint Friday night.

California DUI Deputies reported screening 537 vehicles at the California DUI checkpoint, set up on Mariposa Road north of Nisqually Road.

California DUI Deputies also impounded 16 vehicles that were reportedly driven by unlicensed motorists and issued 146 citations for other violations.

In a news release, California DUI sheriff's officials noted that the California DUI checkpoint was conducted in view of drivers traveling on the 15 Freeway.

They said such a high-visibility law-enforcement operation could deter freeway travelers from driving while intoxicated or California DUI .

California DUI attorneys are looking into this.

Mel Gibson got special treatment for DUI in California?

California DUI attorney news

A review by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department found that some officials appeared to give actor Mel Gibson special treatment when he was arrested last year on drunk driving charges.

The report revealed that three deputies were disciplined for their handling of Gibson’s release from custody. Moreover, a supervisor sought to censor Gibson’s arrest report, which contained an anti-Semitic rant by the actor. A captain overruled that decision.

California DUI lawyers wonder.

$91, 000 for San Jose DUI Police over holidays

San Jose police have received a $91,000 grant to increase CAlifornia DUI impaired driving enforcement throughout the holidays and during the coming year.

The grant, awarded by the Office of Traffic Safety, will go toward targeting DUI offenders and drivers with suspended or revoked licenses, according to San Jose police.

The enforcement will come in the form of checkpoints, which have been shown to significantly reduce DUI fatalities when done aggressively and consistently, according to police.

"When more people drive sober and safely, lives are saved. It's just that simple," said Christopher Murphy, director of the Office of Traffic Safety. "This grant will help make the city of San Jose just that much safer of a place to live and work."

Last year in California, 1,597 people were killed and more than 31,000 injured from drug and alcohol related crashes.

Avoid a Felony DUI this weekend in CAlifornia

California DUI attorney news

One Taft man was seriously injured and another faces felony California DUI drunk driving charges after a high-speed crash on Gardner Field Road east of Taft Wednesday.

Jose Carmen Santellan, 40, was southbound on Gardner Field Road between South Lake Road and Cadet Road when he tried to pass another vehicle, CHP California DUI officer Justin Olson said.

Witnesses told California High Patrol officers Santellan's car was traveling an estimated 100 miles per hour when it crashed.

Santellan's vehicle went off the shoulder in the northbound lane and down an embankment and overturned.

Neither Santellan nor his passenger, Leon Vivar Sollano, 43, of Taft were wearing setbelts but neither was ejected.

Sollano suffered major head injuries in the California DUI crash. He was taken by ambulance to Kern Medical Center where he later regained consciousness.

Santellan was treated for minor injuries and booked into Kern County jail on charges of California DUI felony drunk driving and driving without a license.

A number beer cans were found around the California DUI wreckage and a large bottle of brandy was found in the car.

California drunk driving news

California DUI attorney and california drunk driving lawyer updates

The California Highway Patrol is reporting that drunk driving arrests are up slightly from this time last year.

The CHP says its officers arrested 480 drivers statewide for DUI driving under the influence in the 12-hour period that ended at 6 am today. That figure was up from 447 arrests in the same period last year.

The CHP is in what it calls a "maximum enforcement period" through Christmas night.

Nearly 450 intoxicated drivers in Alameda County have been arrested this holiday season, and the maximum enforcement efforts aren't even halfway over.
Law enforcement agencies throughout the area on Dec. 14 began cracking down on drivers suspected of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Their efforts — which will continue through New Year's Day — have generated large arrest numbers and may have contributed to an even more compelling statistic: zero, the number of fatal crashes attributed to impaired drivers, authorities said.

Locally, Newark police have arrested 10 intoxicated drivers. Fremont and Union City authorities have not released their numbers, said Marty Neideffer, spokesman for the Avoid the 21 anti-DUI campaign.

Newark authorities continued their enforcement efforts Friday night and are expected to saturate the streets with teams of officers seeking impaired drivers again on New Year's Eve.

Fremont officers will conduct a sobriety checkpoint beginning at 8 p.m. Dec. 29 on Decoto Road at Brookmill Road. And Union City will continue to flood the street with officers seeking suspected drunken drivers.

In addition to those agencies, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office — which patrols unincorporated areas, including Sunol — and the CHP will continue roving patrols.

Thus far, the sheriff's office has arrested 209 drivers.

"The goal of the Avoid the 21 program is not necessarily only to roll up DUI arrests," said Sgt. Chris Lucia of the Alameda County Sheriff's DUI enforcement team.
"The goal is to get people to understand the havoc impaired drivers do in our communities and to get them not to drink and drive. Those who do not get that message, we will try to put in jail."



Four people were arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol Friday night in Visalia when Visalia, Dinuba, Exeter and Woodlake police conducted a DUI Task Force operation. Five vehicles were towed, four citations were given to unlicensed drivers, and 11 other citations were issued during the operation, according to police reports. The California Office of Traffic Safety paid for this operation.

The woman whose driverless SUV ran over her foot and crashed into a neighbor's house Sunday evening, said Thursday there is more to the story that resulted in her being charged with driving under the influence. Christina Krieger, 47, of Paradise, said she was alone at her boyfriend's home on Pearson Road when she noticed her 1988 Suburban had slipped out of gear and was rolling down the street.
Krieger said she pursued the vehicle in an attempt to stop it. She said she managed to get the door open and grab the steering wheel, but her arm was twisted and injured in the process, flipped under the Suburban and was dragged until it crashed into a residence. According to Paradise Police Officer Robert Haskins, the vehicle took out the front door and much of the front wall of the home. According to Haskins, the owner was contacted, but doesn't live there.

Krieger said she was covered in blood as she laid under the vehicle in the pouring rain for some time, crying and screaming for help. It appeared no one lived at the house, she said. Because of the resulting injuries from being dragged underneath the four-wheel-drive vehicle, Krieger said she was unable to walk and feared for her life. Krieger sustained a sprained shoulder, fractures in her arm and foot, a bruised knee, lacerations to her wrist and head, and extensive road rash. Somehow, Krieger said, she managed to climb into the vehicle, locate the spare key, and drive approximately 60 feet back to her boyfriend's residence where she called 911.
Officers Haskins and Tim Cooper responded to the scene. Haskins previously told The Post, Krieger's foot was bleeding and showing clear signs of trauma. He also said she was showing obvious signs of intoxication. Krieger was taken to Feather River Hospital where she was treated for her injuries and kept until the next morning. While there, she was also arrested, cited to appear and released.

Cooper, the arresting officer, was unavailable to comment, but Sgt. John Bruschi said Cooper gave Krieger a preliminary alcohol screening test. Krieger claims the device she was breathing into couldn't get a reading, so she had to have her blood taken instead.

Krieger said her blood alcohol level was .08, though Bruschi could not confirm that information. Krieger said she had two and half drinks before chasing her vehicle down the street, and drank the other half when she returned. Bruschi said Krieger was arrested for DUI because she was involved in a collision while intoxicated and she admitted to moving the vehicle from one location to another.

End of California DUI attorney and california drunk driving lawyer update/

California anti - DUI efforts put pressure on California drunk driving attorneys

California DUI lawyers

Nearly 450 California DUI intoxicated drivers in Alameda County have been arrested this holiday season, and the maximum California DUI enforcement efforts aren't even halfway over.
California DUI Law enforcement agencies throughout the area on Dec. 14 began cracking down on drivers suspected of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Their California DUI efforts — which will continue through New Year's Day — have generated large arrest numbers and may have contributed to an even more compelling statistic: zero, the number of fatal crashes attributed to California DUI impaired drivers, authorities said.

Locally, Newark drunk driving police have arrested 10 California DUI intoxicated drivers. Fremont and Union City authorities have not released their numbers, said Marty Neideffer, spokesman for the Avoid the 21 anti-DUI campaign.

Newark authorities continued their California DUI enforcement efforts Friday night and are expected to saturate the streets with teams of officers seeking impaired drivers again on New Year's Eve.

Fremont officers will conduct a California DUI sobriety checkpoint beginning at 8 p.m. Dec. 29 on Decoto Road at Brookmill Road. And Union City will continue to flood the street with officers seeking suspected California DUI drunk drivers.

In addition to those agencies, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office — which patrols unincorporated areas, including Sunol — and the CHP will continue roving patrols.

Thus far, the sheriff's office has arrested 209 California DUI drivers.

"The goal of the Avoid the 21 program is not necessarily only to roll up DUI arrests," said Sgt. Chris Lucia of the Alameda County Sheriff's DUI enforcement team.
"The goal is to get people to understand the havoc impaired drivers do in our communities and to get them not to drink and drive. Those who do not get that message, we will try to put in jail."

Agencies throughout Alameda County have arrested 444 California DUI drivers after seven days of California DUI enforcement, about the same number that were arrested by the agencies during the same time frame last year.

California DUI attorneys are prepared and California drunk driving lawyers are on stand by.

California DUI lawyer updated arrest news

California DUI attorney news

More California DUI enforcement and safer streets are coming to Palm Desert, according to a press release from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

A recent $20,000 grant, awarded by the Office of Traffic Safety to the Palm Desert Police Department, will go to keeping the roadways safe through enforcement and education, according to California DUI police.

The grant will assist efforts to deal with increased impaired driving problems and reduce the number of people killed and injured in alcohol and drug-related traffic collisions.

Last year 1597 people were killed in more than 31,000 injured in California in drug and alcohol-related collisions, said California DUI police.

The grant will also be used for California DUI drunk driving checkpoints, which have been shown to significantly reduce DUI fatalities when used aggressively, according to California DUI police.

California DUI Police say the most positive aspects of DUI checkpoints are their ability to increase public awareness, prevent impaired driving and to encourage designating a sober driver.

Five drivers were arrested Thursday night during a California DUI sobriety and driver's license checkpoint at Belmont and Glenn avenues in central Fresno, police reported this morning.

Officers said the California DUI arrests bring the total to 63 at California DUI checkpoints since the department started a holiday crackdown on California DUI drunk drivers on Dec. 14.

Thursday's California DUI operation also resulted in 24 vehicles being impounded when their drivers were not able to produce a valid license, bringing the total of impounded vehicles at the checkpoints to 200.

In addition to California DUI checkpoints, the department is also conducting city-wide operations involving bar watches and DUI patrol saturations.

The special California DUI enforcement operation will run through Jan. 1.

California DUI - get a designated driver over holidays

California MADD doesn't want folks to have hire California DUI lawyers, so they suggest get a designated driver.

During the holidays, everyone rushes about, going from parties to family dinners to shopping for the perfect gift for friends and loved ones. MADD is doing its part to ensure the roads are safe for everyone traveling but it needs the public’s support too. Before you head out, select a designated, sober driver if you plan on drinking. MADD urges you to designate a trustworthy driver, who agrees to be responsible, safe and sober when driving you, your family and friends to and from your social engagements.

With the huge increase in highway and normal travel this time of year, roads are especially crowded; everyone is in a hurry; weather conditions often increase driving hazards; and heavier-than-usual partying leads to treacherous drinking and driving. 2,195 people were killed in DUI - drunk driving crashes and/or were unbelted between Thanksgiving and New Years in 2005.

Everyone needs a designated, sober driver who is willing to drive without drinking before a party begins. A designated driver is the dependable person you can count on to be sure everyone in the car arrives home safely. A designated driver is not the one in the car who has consumed the least amount of alcohol. A designated driver can be a lifesaver and avoid a DUI.

In the spirit of designating a sober driver, MJM Innovations supports safer communities and MADD’s mission through its TaxiCard® service. This reloadable prepaid card can be used to pay any cab, sedan or limousine service that accepts Discover® Network Cards. Each time a MADD-affiliated TaxiCard® is sold, a portion of the proceeds are donated to MADD. http://www.taxicard.com/ or call (866) 499-8294

Another supporter of MADD is #TAXI. Customers across the U.S. can dial #TAXI (# 8-2-9-4) on any Alltel, AT&T and Boost Mobile mobile phone to connect to the first available cab company, or the taxi company of their choice, at any time of day or night and avoid taxi line busy signals anywhere in the US. This service was developed by CellWand Communications. http://www.cellwand.com/

“We are very appreciative of the support of these committed organizations,” said Glynn Birch, national president of MADD. Designating a sober driver and using resources like these help prevent a DUI or drunk driving.

California DUI lawyers are willing to help any way they can, but only if necessary.

California DUI vehicular manslaughter

A Sacramento woman will be charged with vehicular manslaughter and felony California DUI in a crash in Carmichael that killed one person.

According to the California Highway Patrol, 34-year-old Bethann Colyer ran a red light and slammed into another vehicle at Whitney and Eastern avenues at 10:50 p.m. Wednesday.

Scott Allen Crouch, 18, was killed.

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

Colyer suffered minor injuries.

Why you should not represent yourself on a San Diego California DUI case

California DUI lawyers

Filed 12/20/07 P. v. Twyne CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHAWN TWYNE,

Defendant and Appellant.
D049862
(Super. Ct. No. SCN193132)

In re SHAWN A. TWYNE on Habeas Corpus. D050986

Consolidated appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy M. Casserly, Judge, and petition for writ of habeas corpus. Judgment affirmed; petition denied.

Tywne appeals from a judgment convicting him of driving under the influence of alcohol. In his appeal, he contends the trial court (1) abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss a strike prior conviction, and (2) violated his jury trial rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 (Apprendi) by imposing an upper-term sentence. In a writ petition filed in propria persona, he asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings that he suffered two prior convictions for driving under the influence in 1996. We reject his arguments, and accordingly affirm the judgment and deny the writ petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Around 2:00 a.m. on March 25, 2005, Officers Michael Kelley and Brian Kennedy observed Twyne's vehicle drift from the slow to the middle freeway lane; weave within the slow lane; change lanes directly in front of another vehicle; and suddenly accelerate from 70 to 80 miles per hour. Officer Kelley turned on his emergency lights to stop Twyne. Twyne moved over to the slow lane, passed a freeway exit, and began to stop his vehicle in the slow lane. Officer Kennedy spoke over the P.A. system and repeatedly instructed Twyne to move his vehicle out of the lanes. Twyne slowly moved his vehicle and stopped on the shoulder of the freeway. Again speaking over the P.A. system, Officer Kennedy told Twyne to drive to the next exit and exit the freeway. Twyne complied.

Twyne acknowledged to the officers that his license was suspended. Officer Kelley observed that Twyne appeared intoxicated: his eyes were red and watery, his breath smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, and his appearance was unkempt. Twyne did not perform well on field sobriety tests. A blood test administered at the detention facility showed a blood alcohol level of .19.

Testifying on his own behalf, Twyne presented a necessity defense. He claimed that he was forced to drive when the designated driver who was driving the vehicle got into an argument with her husband and abandoned Twyne and the other passengers in the vehicle on the side of the freeway.

The jury found Twyne guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (count 1, Veh. Code,1 § 23152, subd. (a)); driving with a .08 percent or more blood alcohol level (count 2, § 23152, subd. (b)); and misdemeanor driving with a suspended or revoked license (count 3, § 14601.1, subd. (a)). Twyne admitted that he had incurred a prior prison term and a strike prior conviction based on a 1998 conviction for making a criminal threat. At a bench trial, the court found that within 10 years of the current offenses Twyne had suffered three separate prior convictions for driving under the influence (two in 1996 and one in 2002), which elevated the current convictions on counts 1 and 2 from misdemeanors to felonies. (§ 23550, subd. (a).)

Refusal to Dismiss Strike Prior

At sentencing, Twyne moved to dismiss his strike prior conviction for making a criminal threat. The trial court denied his request. Twyne contends the court's ruling was an abuse of discretion.

The purpose of the three strikes law is to impose extended punishment on defendants who have previously committed violent or serious felonies and who again




commit a felony, thus showing they have not been rehabilitated or deterred from further criminal activity. (People v. Leng (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1, 14.) A trial court may dismiss a strike prior conviction if, in light of the nature and circumstances of the current and prior felony convictions and the particulars of the defendant's background, character, and prospects, the defendant is deemed outside the spirit of the three strikes law in whole or in part. (Pen. Code, § 1385, subd. (a); People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) On appeal, we review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376.) The defendant must show that the trial court's refusal to dismiss the strike prior is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it. (Id. at p. 377.)

The record reveals the following criminal history. On February 24, 1996, Twyne was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Two days later, on February 26, he was again arrested for the same offense. His blood alcohol level for these offenses was .17 and .12, respectively. He pleaded no contest to separate counts of misdemeanor driving under the influence. He was ordered to attend an alcohol program and placed on five years' summary probation. In February and November 1997, he engaged in a series of vandalisms, assaults, and threats directed at his girlfriend, including breaking her kitchen window on two occasions, punching her in the face, smashing the window and slashing the tire of her car, repeatedly threatening to kill her, and going to her home with a gun. For this conduct, he pleaded guilty in December 1997 to misdemeanor making criminal threats, battery, and vandalism. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail and placed on three years' summary probation.

In March 1998, Twyne again threatened to kill the same girlfriend; when he was arrested near her residence he was found to be in possession of a kitchen knife. For this offense, he pleaded guilty to felony criminal threat (incurring his strike prior conviction). He was placed on three years' formal probation, which included one year in jail. While on probation for this offense, he tested positive for a cocaine metabolite, failed to appear for testing on several occasions, and continued to contact and threaten the victim. In January 1999, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to three years in prison.

Twyne was released from prison in February 2000. He was thereafter repeatedly sent back to prison for parole violations, including a June 2002 offense of misdemeanor driving under the influence (for which his blood alcohol level was .14 percent). In March 2005, he committed the current driving under the influence offense. The probation report indicates that at the time of sentencing there were two active restraining orders against him filed by two women (one of whom was his former wife) who were not involved in the 1998 criminal threats case.

Twyne argued that his criminal threat strike prior conviction should be dismissed because he did not injure anyone during the current offense, and the strike prior was remote in time and was not categorized as a strike offense when he pleaded guilty. He asserted he was not a criminally oriented person and that his problems stemmed from his alcohol addiction. He contended his future prospects were promising because he was remarried, had a child, had a volunteer ethic (as shown by his involvement in social service activities for veterans), had stable employment, and recognized he needed help to achieve sobriety.

After examining Twyne's past and current circumstances and criminal history, the trial court concluded Twyne did not fall outside the spirit of the three strikes law and declined to dismiss the strike prior. The court found the criminal threat was a serious offense and was not particularly remote. Further, the court found the current driving under the influence offense was serious because Twyne had repeatedly engaged in the behavior, he would "not stop," and "as a result, he [was] a danger to the community on the roadway."

The record supports the trial court's denial of Twyne's request to dismiss his strike prior. In 1996, 2002, and 2005, he drove while under the influence of alcohol. Rehabilitative and penal efforts designed to curb this potentially life-threatening behavior were not successful. In 1997, he repeatedly terrorized his girlfriend and was placed in jail and on probation. These sanctions did not deter his threatening and assaultive behavior; he again threatened the girlfriend in 1998, thereby incurring his criminal threat strike prior conviction. After his release from prison in 2000, he repeatedly violated parole (including driving under the influence in 2002 with a .14 blood alcohol level) and was returned to prison. In 2005 he engaged in the current driving under the influence offense with a .19 blood alcohol level. Thus, despite prior incarcerations and other interventions, Twyne continued to drive with highly elevated blood alcohol levels. Further, the existence of two restraining orders against him at the time of sentencing suggests continued problems with his conduct towards women. The trial court reasonably concluded Twyne was not outside the spirit of the three strikes law. The factors cited by Twyne to show his stability and motivations to change did not compel the trial court to reach a contrary conclusion.

Imposition of Upper Term

The trial court sentenced Twyne to prison for seven years. His sentence consisted of a three-year upper-term sentence for count 1, doubled to six years for the strike prior conviction, plus a one-year enhancement for a prior prison term enhancement. Sentence on count 2 was stayed, and sentence on the count 3 misdemeanor was imposed concurrently.

To support its selection of an upper-term sentence, the trial court found that Twyne's prior convictions were numerous and his past performance on probation had been unsatisfactory. Twyne argues the trial court's imposition of an upper-term sentence based on facts not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt violated his jury trial rights under the Apprendi rule.

A defendant has a constitutional right to have the jury, not the trial judge, decide all facts that increase the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum. (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 301 (Blakely); Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856, 860] (Cunningham).) Under Apprendi and its progeny, the statutory maximum is "the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant." (Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 303, italics omitted.) Based on the high court's definition of "statutory maximum," if the sentencing judge selects a punishment which under the state penal statute requires factual findings beyond the facts encompassed in the guilty verdict, such judicial fact finding violates the defendant's jury trial right. (Id. at pp. 865, 868-869.) An exception to the Apprendi rule allows a sentencing court to enhance punishment beyond the statutory maximum based on "the fact of a prior conviction." (Blakely, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 301; Cunningham, supra, 127 S.Ct. at p. 860.)

Prior to a recent amendment of Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), the statutory maximum in California was the middle term. (Cunningham, supra, 127 S.Ct. at pp. 868, 871.)2 However, the California Supreme Court recently determined that even under the former version of the statute, the upper term is converted to the statutory maximum if the sentencing record shows that at least one aggravating circumstance was established in accordance with the Apprendi rule so as to render the defendant eligible for the upper term. (People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799 (Black II)). In reaching this conclusion, the Black II court focused on (1) the United States Supreme Court's advisements that the key constitutional considerations are whether the state statute forbids the trial court from increasing the sentence above a certain term without judicial




findings beyond the jury's verdict and thus the defendant is legally entitled to that particular term, and (2) the feature of California's sentencing scheme that provides that a single aggravating circumstance is legally sufficient to make the defendant eligible for the upper term. (Id. at pp. 812-816.) Considering these matters, the court in Black II reasoned that when one aggravating circumstance has been established in accordance with constitutional requirements, the trial court is not forbidden from imposing the upper term, the defendant is not legally entitled to the middle term, and it follows that the upper term is the statutory maximum. (Ibid.)

The Black II court concluded that "imposition of the upper term does not infringe upon the defendant's constitutional right to jury trial so long as one legally sufficient aggravating circumstance has been found to exist by the jury, has been admitted by the defendant, or is justified based upon the defendant's record of prior convictions." (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 816.) Thus, once the defendant is eligible for the upper term based on the establishment of a constitutionally permissible fact, "the federal Constitution permits the trial court to rely upon any number of aggravating circumstances in exercising its discretion to select the appropriate term by balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, regardless of whether the facts underlying those circumstances have been found to be true by a jury." (Id. at p. 813.)

In Black II, the California Supreme Court examined the scope of the prior conviction exception and defined it as including "not only the fact that a prior conviction occurred, but also other related issues that may be determined by examining the records of the prior convictions." (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 819.) Illustrative of this interpretation of the prior conviction exception, the Black II court held the aggravating factors of numerous or increasingly serious prior convictions were within the prior conviction exception. The Black II court explained that findings of numerousness or increasing seriousness "require consideration of only the number, dates, and offenses of the prior convictions alleged"; the relative seriousness "may be determined simply by reference to the range of punishment provided by statute for each offense"; and these types of determinations were " 'quite different from the resolution of issues submitted to a jury' " and more appropriate for a court. (Id. at pp. 819-820.)

Here, one of the aggravating factors relied on by the trial court to impose the upper term was that Twyne had incurred numerous prior convictions. Based on our Supreme Court's holding in Black II, this factor was within the prior conviction exception to the Apprendi rule and made Twyne eligible for the upper term. Accordingly, the trial court did not violate Twyne's jury trial rights when it imposed the upper term.

Writ Petition

Twyne filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court. He contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he suffered the two alleged 1996 convictions for driving under the influence.

The prosecution alleged that Twyne had committed prior driving under the influence (DUI) offenses on June 18, 2002, February 26, 1996, and February 24, 1996. At the bench trial on the three alleged prior DUI convictions, the prosecution presented booking photographs and fingerprint cards for the current 2005 offense and the 2002 offense. A fingerprint expert testified that the fingerprint cards for the 2005 and 2002 offenses were for the same person.

The prosecution also presented certified copies of the complaints and plea forms for the 2002 and 1996 offenses. In the plea form for the 2002 offense, Twyne admitted that he had incurred the two 1996 DUI convictions. Based on this admission, as well as signatures on the three plea forms that appeared to be the same, the prosecution argued the two 1996 convictions had been proven. Although conceding that the conviction for the 2002 offense had been proven, Twyne's counsel contended there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Twyne had incurred the 1996 convictions.

The trial court concluded the 1996 convictions had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that Twyne admitted them in the plea form for the 2002 offense and there was no dispute that he was the person in the 2002 offense.

The record supports a finding that the 1996 convictions were incurred and that Twyne is the person who incurred them. In his writ petition, Twyne has not made any showing that the certified copies of the 2002 and 1996 plea forms were fabricated or erroneous, or that he is not the person who committed the 1996 offenses. He has failed to present a prima facie case for relief, and according we summarily deny his petition. (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 475.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.



1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise specified.



2 In Cunningham, the United States Supreme Court abrogated the California Supreme Court's ruling in People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238, vacated in Black v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 1210], that the upper term was the statutory maximum. The Cunningham court held that the statutory maximum was the middle term because under California's sentencing scheme the trial court was required to select the middle term unless it found an aggravating fact that was not an element of the offense found by the jury. (Cunningham, supra, 127 S.Ct. at pp. 868, 871.) In response to Cunningham, effective March 30, 2007, the California Legislature amended Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b) to make the middle term a discretionary rather than presumptive term. (Stats. 2007, ch. 3, § 2; see People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 845-847.) Our analysis is premised on the former version of the statute.

Court TV: DUI starring California DUI cops

California DUI lawyer update

Fresno's finest California DUI drunk driving police are starring in a new pilot television show that showcases the police department's tough tactics against those who dare to get behind the wheel after drinking: California DUI drunk driving drivers.

The Court TV reality show "Driving: Under the Influence" premiered Dec. 7.

The show follows officers as they stage California DUI drunk driving checkpoints and stake out bars watching for drinkers stumbling to their cars.

Fresno California DUI drunk driving police are hoping the half-hour show results in a series, but officials with the cable network said they couldn't comment on when they would make that decision.

The Fresno Police Department's muscular tactics have won it awards from Mothers Against Drunk Driving for their California DUI drunk driving enforcement.

Hit CHP cop, go to Jail for DUI in California

DUI in California news

52-year-old Richard McMillan of Valley Springs was arrested for DUI after striking a California Highway Patrol car that was making a stop on Hwy 12 east of Evans Rd Wednesday night.

"The good news is that there were no injuries and just minor damage to the patrol vehicle,” says CHP Spokesperson Mike Maddox. “It is a reminder to people that you need to be watching at all times because you never know when drunk drivers are going to come at you.”

McMillan was taken into custody without incident. The California DUI accident was reported at 7:48pm.

San Diego California DUI enforcement escalates, attorney notes

San diego dui attorneys

San Diego DUI enforcement escalates

State and federal grants are helping law enforcement agencies step up efforts to get San Diego drunk drivers off the road during the holiday season.

In East County, the La Mesa Police Department is joining other agencies to conduct a driver's license/ San Diego DUI checkpoint somewhere in the La Mesa/El Cajon area tonight.

In Carlsbad, police will conduct a San Diego DUI checkpoint Friday night on Palomar Airport Road, east of El Camino Real.

In the South Bay, Chula Vista police will hold San Diego DUI checkpoints on both Friday and Saturday from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m. somewhere in the city.

Sheriff's deputies in Santee and Lemon Grove will use a $14,000 grant to conduct San Diego DUI checkpoints and to keep extra personnel on the streets to target San Diego drunk drivers. The San Diego County DUI agencies are also encouraging drivers who spot a potentially impaired San Diego motorist to call 9-1-1.

Napa Convictions for DUI online

California DUI lawyer report of DUI / drunk driving arrests & dwi convictions

The Napa Valley Register publishes monthly statistics on arrests and convictions for driving under the influence -- and convictions for so-called "wet reckless" convictions -- in Napa County.

Arrest information is from the Napa County Sheriff's Department. Convictions, names and blood-alcohol levels are from Napa County Superior Court.
Convictions include cases where the person pleaded guilty or no contest to one or more drunk driving charges, or where one or more such charges resulted in a guilty verdict at trial.

Vehicle code violations considered are:

23152 -- driving under the influence

23103.5 -- reckless driving while under the influence

23153 -- causing injury to another while driving while under the influence

The blood-alcohol levels provided by the court are based on a variety of tests -- some taken at the scene of the arrest or county jail, others through a later blood test -- and have not necessarily been proven or admitted in court.

It is unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle if that person has a blood-alcohol level of .08 or more, according to the California Vehicle Code.

California DUI Lawyer Proof of Sobriety Through Cell Phone Option

California DUI Attorney information

A cell phone company now offers a service to customers that prevents them from waking up the next morning to the realization they have made agonizing drunk calls.

Since Dec. 1, Australia's Virgin Moblie customers were given the option to avoid dialing under the influence during the holiday season. To avoid the vague memory of calling an ex or a friend at 3 a.m. after a night of drinking with friends, customers, before they go out and get drunk, can dial "333" followed by the phone number they don't want to "drunk dial."

Virgin Mobile charges its customers 25 cents for the service to stop all calls by blacklisting them until 6 a.m., according to a company press release.

A Virgin Mobile spokesperson said when customers attempt to call a blacklisted number, they will hear an interactive voice response system saying the call cannot be connected and advises it is for their own good.

To clear the blocked number in case of emergency, a customer can dial "333CLEAR" to clear all blacklisted entries.

Virgin Mobile recently conducted a survey indicating 95 percent of people who drink make calls while intoxicated - 30 percent of these calls are to their exes and 19 percent are to current partners.

The Virgin Mobile Australia press release also said it is not just one call people are making. Fifty-four percent of people surveyed said they made between one and three calls every night.

"This service doesn't sound like a bad idea," psychology senior John Ross McIlroy said. "It could come in handy for Americans who know themselves well enough to not have self-control over their impulses."

McIlroy has experienced being "drunk dialed" firsthand. He said each time it occurred, it created an uncomfortable situation for both him and the dialing perpetrator. As for the women who "drunk dialed," McIlroy said they were embarrassed when they saw him afterward.

Kerry Perkin, public relations manager for Virgin Mobile, said the feedback from the general Australian public and media is that the service is a fantastic idea.

"It is something they really wanted during the busy social Christmas season," she said. According to www.msnbc.com, the service move comes from an intensifying price war between mobile competitors Virgin and Vodaphone to secure customers based on Virgin's launch of a new monthly $45 AUD (approximately $35 U.S.) price cap that includes $200 AUD (approximately $155 U.S.) worth of mobile services.

Virgin Mobile customers in the United States have a similar feature called Rescue Rings, Sue D'Agostino, a public relations representative for Virgin Mobile, said.

"We've all been there," D'Agostino said, "stuck in a nightmare blind date, meeting, class or conversation with no way out."

At the same price of drunk-dialing prevention, rescue rings cost 25 cents to set up.

Customers get to choose from a variety of personalities to rescue them, she said. On the phone keypad, they enter the time and time zone, day, month and year for the rescue.

When a customer sets up his or her phone with a "rescue ring," an audio recorded personality calls at the designated time to help escape from a sticky situation, she said.

A Virgin Mobile USA press release said when the customer answers the phone at the pre-determined time and begins to pretend to have a conversation, he or she can improvise the rest.

Communication junior Denelle Tetzlaff said she would use both services if she had to.

"I think 25 cents is worth peace of mind, but it just gives people an excuse to be dishonest when it comes to facing an uneasy situation," she said. "Using the services once or twice might be fun, but it will probably turn into a fad."

California DUI lawyers may use this as evidence that their clients are sober.

California DUI crackdown

California DUI lawyer news

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec. 19 2008

At a California DUI news conference held today at the California Highway Patrol (CHP) 911 emergency dispatch center in Rancho Cordova, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Director Christopher J. Murphy announced $4 million in grants to 103 local California DUI law enforcement agencies for special holiday DUI enforcement efforts. Murphy also unveiled one of the over 750 'Report California DUI Drunk Drivers. Call 911' OTS funded signs being installed approximately every 40 miles along state and county roadways.

"Impaired driving is a completely preventable crime," said Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Secretary Dale E. Bonner. "The combined efforts of the state's law enforcement community, state agencies and help from the public are making California roadways safer."

As Californians make plans for upcoming holiday travel, OTS wants California DUI motorists to know that the state is coordinating unparalleled resources to deter and remove impaired drivers from the roadways. The public can do their part by arranging for a designated sober driver or not drinking and driving in the first place.

"Impaired driving puts everyone on the road in danger, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that California's motorists enjoy a safe, crash-free holiday season," said Director Murphy. "The CHP, along with local police and sheriff's departments, are combining aggressive enforcement with public education, and will be working diligently to arrest anyone who drives impaired and endangers lives."

The CHP and local agencies will be stepping up California DUI enforcement by putting all available officers on the road in the coming weeks. In addition to installing the new roadway signs, Caltrans will also be utilizing their changeable message signs to remind millions of travelers to "Report Drunk Drivers. Call 911."

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will feature "Report Drunk Drivers. Call 911" messaging in all of their field offices. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control will be out in force to fight alcohol sales to those obviously intoxicated or underage.

California DUI attorneys news

CHP's DUI goal in California

News for California DUI attorneys


Keeping the roads safe for the holidays is the goal for California Highway Patrol during the annual holiday DUI crackdown. Eighty percent of the CHP's available officers will patrol highways on the lookout for drivers who are under the influence.

Maximum enforcement periods are scheduled for Dec. 22 through Christmas Day and Dec. 29 through New Year's Day, according to Clear Lake Area CHP officer Adam Garcia. Information about DUI checkpoints will be announced at a later date, Garcia said. "We're asking the public to report drunk drivers by calling 9-1-1 and providing the location and a complete description of the vehicle," CHP Commissioner Mike Brown said in a December press release from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). "This will help us know who we're looking for and where to look."

The 2006 holiday crackdown brought maximum enforcement on the weekends before Christmas and New Year's. Garcia said that in Lake County, there were a total of 18 crashes and eight injuries between the two weekends. No deaths were reported during the crackdown. According to the OTS, five people died in Lake County as a result of alcohol-involved crashes in 2006.

Statewide, 1,597 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes in 2006, according to the OTS release. That number is up 23 from 2005. Another 31,099 people were injured in alcohol-related crashes in 2006.
"We really don't like being the Grinch, but if that's what it takes to save lives on the roadway, we're prepared to play that role," CHP Lt. Dane Hayward said in a CHP release. Hayward commands the CHP Clear Lake Area office.

Desert California DUI checkpoint

California DUI attorney news

A traffic-enforcement / California DUI checkpoint set up in Rancho Mirage over the weekend resulted in three California DUI DUI arrests, authorities announced Monday.

During the California DUI operation, which ran from 9 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Sunday, 17 other drivers were arrested for driving without a valid license, said Riverside County sheriff's Sgt. John Doyle.

He said one driver was arrested on a felony warrant and another for possession of stolen property.

The cCalifornia DUI heckpoint was made possible through special distribution funds established by Senate Bill 621 with funds paid by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

The grant provides funding for traffic safety and California DUI Drunk Driving enforcement programs.

Top California DUI criminal defense lawyers in the area may challenge the constitutionality of these California DUI roadblocks.

California District Attorney pleads No Contest to DUI

California DUI lawyer - drunk driving attorney news

Shasta County deputy district attorney who formerly prosecuted drunk driving cases pleaded no contest Monday to a single misdemeanor charge of Vehicle Code Section 23152 California DUI .

Patricia Jean Haley, 28, was sentenced to 36 months informal probation, 48 hours in jail and must complete an alcohol treatment rehabilitation program as well as pay California DUI fines.

Haley wasn't present at Monday's hearing before retired Lassen County Judge Joseph B. Harvey. She entered the California DUI plea through her Redding criminal defense attorney, Joe Gazzigli.

"She wanted to get this thing resolved personally, administratively and in the courts," Gazzigli said after the hearing held at the Shasta County Juvenile Justice

Center, where Harvey was hearing cases Monday.

Harvey presided over the case after Shasta County's judges declined to hear it because of a perceived conflict. An attorney for the California Attorney General's office acted as prosecutor because of a similar conflict of interest with the county District Attorney's Office.

District Attorney Jerry Benito on Monday also released the details of Haley's discipline within the DA's office.

Her punishment includes 30 days without pay, effective Dec. 1, a demotion and pay decrease. Haley's demotion is from a Level II attorney to a Level I.

A Level I attorney makes between $55,680 and $71,064 a year, while a Level II attorney makes between $60,192 and $76,836, according to the county personnel department's Web site.

Haley no longer will be specializing in California DUI drunk driving cases, Benito said. She's been on leave since her Nov 17 arrest.

Benito said in a prepared statement that Haley has shown significant remorse and has been more than forthcoming about her arrest -- telling her superiors about it that day -- and that she has cooperated with the DA's office internal investigation.

Haley had been with the office for only a year, and was bumped up to prosecute DUIs full time a week before her California DUI arrest, Benito said.

He called her a great, hardworking and caring prosecutor. Before her California DUI arrest, she earned the respect of judges, crime victims and others in the prosecutor's office, he said.

Haley agreed to disclose the conditions of her discipline despite personnel rules that grant public employees secrecy in such matters, Benito said.

"She has completely taken responsibility for her actions, Benito said.

Benito's statement also includes new details of Haley's California DUI arrest.

According to the statement, Haley gave some friends a ride home on the night of Nov. 17 after drinking "several" drinks with them at a Redding bar.

A California Highway Patrol officer saw her stopped near Argyle Road and Hartnell Avenue with the rear end of her vehicle protruding about four feet into the roadway.

The California DUI officer flashed his lights and checked Haley for DUI after smelling alcohol on her breath. She registered a .14 on a preliminary blood-alcohol breath test. The legal limit in California is .08.

She was arrested and booked into Shasta County jail for California DUI , and released after taking two other breath tests that registered a .10 and a .11 blood alcohol content, according to Benito's statement.

Benito has commended Haley for not flashing her badge, identifying herself as a prosecutor or asking for special treatment.

Haley's California DUI arrest wasn't the first time in Shasta County in recent years that a person with a badge -- or even a prosecutor -- has been convicted of driving drunk.

In February 2003, former Deputy District Attorney Cynthia Campbell was arrested by the CHP after crashing her car into a utility pole near Deschutes Road and Suncrest Ridge in Bella Vista, according to the arrest report filed with her case file in Shasta County court.

Campbell registered a .19 blood-alcohol content after consenting to a blood test, documents show. She also identified herself as a deputy district attorney after the CHP officer saw her badge in her wallet, according to the report.

She pleaded no contest and received a sentenced similar to Haley's, with the exception that she was ordered to pay Pacific Gas & Electric $7,445 for damaging the power pole, court documents show.

Benito, who wasn't at the DA's Office when Campbell worked for the department, declined to release the details of her discipline report, citing personnel confidentiality rules.

A message left Monday at the Redding attorney's office where Campbell now works was not returned.

Redding Police Officer Christopher Jacoby was the second badge holder convicted of DUI in recent years.

Jacoby was arrested on March 24, 2006, after CHP officers found his car had careened off an embankment on the side of Highway 44 near Millville Plains Road, according to a CHP arrest report filed with Shasta County courts.

When he handed an officer his driver's license, he also handed him a Redding police business card, according to the report.

He registered a .206 blood-alcohol level during a preliminary breath test, the report showed.

Aside from fines and 36-months probation, Jacoby's no contest plea came with a 10-day jail sentence.

Redding Police Chief Leonard Moty declined to release the conditions of Jacoby's discipline within the police department, citing California law that forbids officer disciplinary records from being disclosed to the public.

Other Northern California DUI attorney's clients:

69 drivers, including 25 in Shasta County, were arrested from Friday through Sunday as part of a five-county operation targeting drunken drivers, it was announced Monday.

The DUI operation, dubbed North State Regional Avoid, runs through Jan. 1.

Since it began on Friday, 35 DUI arrests have been made in Butte County, while 25 arrests were made in Shasta County. There also have been five arrests in Tehama County, four in Siskiyou County.

Fresno DUI crush

Dui lawyers - drunk driving california attorneys

An expanded california drunk driving operation in the valley netted 32 california arrests in its first night.
42 law enforcement agencies are taking part in the crackdown, which spread to the south valley this year.
Last year, officers took almost 600 suspected california drunk drivers off the road in Fresno and Madera counties during a similar operation.
Several people were injured by california drunk drivers last winter, but nobody was killed during the Christmas season crackdown.

Sal Quintero was booked into the Fresno County jail Friday morning.
Officers were called out to the scene after getting a call of a suspicious vehicle. When they arrived they found Quintero asleep with his car on the sidewalk, and one of his tires flat after a minor accident.
Fresno police reports say Quintero had a blood alcohol level of point 16, twice the legal limit, when officers were called to a location near California and Chestnut in southeast Fresno.
Story continues belowAdvertisement
The 8 year former Fresno city councilman was cooperative according to officer's notes.
Police reports say quote "I opened the driver door and contacted the driver and woke him up. His speech was slurred as he repeated 'it's good' over and over until I identified myself as a Fresno Police Officer."
Quintero told officers "When asked how many drinks he had, he said he had three glasses of red wine total throughout the night."
Officers say Quintero told them he had gone to two parties at local restaurants before he left for home.
Quintero issued a handwritten statement to Action News late Monday saying quote "Lately I have gone through some difficult times in my life. I made an error in judgment. I have always accepted my responsibilities and will continue to do so. I will accept the consequences and move on with my life."

Withdrawal of California DUI attorney's client's DUI pleas

Can a defendant withdraw a California DUI plea entered by his California DUI lawyer?

There are legal standards, evidenced by this sample motion to withdraw plea:

DEFENDANT'S PLEA MAY BE WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO JUDGMENT
OR WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF AN ORDER GRANTING PROBATION

At any time before judgment or within six months after an order granting probation, and if entry of judgment was suspended, the Court may permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea and the entry of a not guilty plea on a showing of good cause. (See Penal Code §1018; CEB CA Crim Law, Proc. & Prac. (2005 Ed.) pp. 763-765, §10.21; People v Miranda (2004) 123 CA4th 1124, 20 CR3d 610; and People v Waters (1975) 52 CA3d 323, 328, 125 CR 46, 49).

The defendant must personally make some expression in open court that authorizes or adopts a motion made on his or her behalf to withdraw a guilty plea; the defendant's silence during a motion to withdraw will not suffice. PC §1018; Johnson v Superior Court (1981) 121 CA3d 115, 175 CR 272.

The decision to move to withdraw a guilty plea belongs to the defendant. Counsel may not simply refuse the defendant's request to make the motion. If counsel is not willing to make such a motion, new counsel should be appointed for the defendant. People v McLeod (1989) 210 CA3d 585, 588, 258 CR 496; People v Brown (1986) 179 CA3d 207, 224 CR 476. If the defendant wants to withdraw the guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the trial court should appoint new counsel to represent the defendant on the motion to withdraw the plea. People v Smith (1993) 6 C4th 684, 25 CR2d 122. Defense counsel's failure to move to withdraw a plea of guilty at the defendant's request when good grounds exist could be considered ineffective assistance of counsel. People v Osorio (1987) 194 CA3d 183, 239 CR 333.

DEFENDANT HAS GOOD CAUSE TO WITHDRAW HIS PRIOR PLEA

“Good cause” to set aside a guilty plea is shown when, as here, the Defendant demonstrates that the plea was entered as the result of incompetence on the part of the Defendant, mistake, ignorance, inadvertence, or some other factor that demonstrates that the Defendant did not freely, knowingly and intelligently waive his various constitutional rights. (See, People v Caban (1983) 148 CA3d 706, 196 CR 177 (defendant allowed to withdraw guilty plea because he was not told that prison was mandatory if he pleaded guilty to robbery with use of gun).

In addition, and as mentioned above, Defendant may withdraw his plea based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In such a case, the trial court should appoint new counsel to represent the defendant on the motion to withdraw the plea. (See, People v Smith (1993) 6 C4th 684, 25 CR2d 122). Here, because Defendant has now obtained and substituted in his own private counsel, it is not necessary for the Court to appoint new counsel.

In the case at bar, Defendant contends that (1) either as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, or (2) as a result of mistake, ignorance, inadvertence, or all of the above, Defendant was simply not competent to, and did not freely, intelligently nor voluntarily waive his various constitutional rights, including his right to a jury trial as well as his right to remain silent.

Criminal defendants who do not understand English are entitled to have an interpreter throughout the criminal proceedings. (Cal Const art I, §14.) The interpreter must be available exclusively for the defendant; the defendant cannot be required to share an interpreter with others, e.g., witnesses. People v Aguilar (1984) 35 C3d 785, 200 CR 908 (conviction reversed; trial court "borrowed" interpreter to translate state witnesses' testimony); People v Baez (1987) 195 CA3d 1431, 241 CR 435 (conviction reversed because error not harmless beyond reasonable doubt). The court in People v Rodriguez (1986) 42 C3d 1005, 1013, 232 CR 132, held that it is best that each defendant have an interpreter assigned to him or her who remains with the defendant throughout the proceedings.

As a consequence of the foregoing, it is clear that Defendant was plainly not competent to enter any plea. Defendant’s present application is both timely and credible. (See, People v Fick (1980) 107 CA3d 892, 896, 166 CR 106, 108). Although it is the Defendant’s burden to produce evidence of good cause, however, when in doubt, the Court should grant a prejudgment motion to withdraw a guilty plea. (See, People v Spears (1984) 153 CA3d 79, 88, 199 CR 922, 927).

When a Defendant successfully withdraws his guilty plea, the case is restored to its status before entry of the plea, including revival of any charges dismissed under the bargain. People v Superior Court (Garcia) (1982) 131 CA3d 256, 182 CR 426.

DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT THE COURT HOLD A HEARING
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF DEFENDANT'S PRIOR GUILTY PLEA

The California Supreme Court's holding in People v. Sumstine (1984) 36 C.3d 909requires that, for due process purposes, and unless this Court is otherwise persuaded that Defendant’s prior entry of a guilty plea was the result of either incompetence on the part of the Defendant, mistake, ignorance, inadvertence, or ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court should hold a meaningful evidentiary hearing for purposes of permitting Defendant to challenge the legality and/or constitutionality of his prior plea.

Cop makes mistake in under 21 California DUI / DMV case

California DUI attorney - Under 21 win

MILAD F. NAZERIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEVEN GOURLEY, as Director, etc., Defendant and Respondent.


Civil No. B174066


COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX

2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5891


July 6, 2005
PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. No. 1131394. James W. Brown, Judge.

CORE TERMS: driver, license, alcohol, calibration, suspension, blood alcohol, zero, concentration, margin of error, hearing officer, tolerance, driving, sworn, foundational, machine, tested, log, measured, saliva, hundred percent, administered, screening, allowable, training, replied, admissible, independent recollection, alcohol concentration, sworn statement, working order

COUNSEL: Law Office of Lee A. McCoy, Lee A. McCoy for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Jacob A. Appelsmith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Silvia M. Diaz, Lead Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Dana T. Cartozian, Deputy Attorney Gen., for Defendant and Respondent.

JUDGES: COFFEE, J.; GILBERT, P.J., YEGAN, J. concurred.
OPINION BY: COFFEE

OPINION: Milad F. Nazerian appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus which challenged the suspension of his driver's license for driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater. (Veh. Code, § 23136.) n1 We reverse and remand with instructions.

- - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - -

n1 All statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.

- - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - -- - - - [*2]

Procedural and Factual Background

On May 10, 2003, at 2:01 a.m., Officer H. Williams of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department stopped the vehicle driven by appellant after hearing the sound of amplified music coming from the vehicle more than 100 feet away, in violation of section 27007. Officer Williams detected an odor of alcohol on appellant, who was under the age of 21. The officer administered two preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) tests to appellant at 2:20 a.m. and 2:23 a.m., determined that appellant had violated section 23136 (the "zero tolerance law"), and issued an administrative order suspending his license based on the PAS test results.

Thereafter, appellant challenged the suspension of his license before the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). At the DMV hearing, the hearing officer admitted into evidence, among other documents, Officer Williams' sworn police report on form DS 367m, stating that he obtained the PAS test results in the regular course of his duties, administered the test in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines and instructions, had received training on the proper operation of the device and administration of the test, and that [*3] the device was functioning properly at the time of the test. The officer's report, as explained below, erroneously recorded the PAS test results as 0.12 percent and 0.13 percent.

The hearing officer conducted the hearing by telephone, calling Officer Williams as the first witness. Officer Williams testified that he had received training in the academy on conducting DUI investigations for individuals under the age of 21 and took a 40-hour training class in April of 2001. In response to the hearing officer's question as to whether he was certified by his department to use the AlcoSensor IV, Officer Williams stated: "I don't know if I was specifically certified, but yes, I was authorized to do DUI investigations." The hearing officer clarified that he was using the term "certification" in a general manner, and then asked the officer if he was "expected to conduct DUI investigations as a normal part of [his] daily job routine." Officer Williams replied that he was expected to do so.

Officer Williams did not have a copy of his sworn DS 367m report with him when he testified by telephone. With admirable candor, he informed the hearing officer that he did not have an independent recollection [*4] of his investigation of appellant. The hearing officer inquired whether the officer could remember exactly what the PAS test results were that evening. The officer replied, "No. I have a very poor memory at this time."

During cross-examination, Officer Williams testified that he cited appellant for violating the zero tolerance law because his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was not high enough to charge him with drunk driving. Appellant questioned the officer as to whether he had made a transcription error on his sworn DS 367m report in recording the PAS test results. Again with admirable candor, the officer acknowledged that he had made a mistake in recording the PAS test results, writing 0.12 percent and 0.13 percent instead of 0.012 percent and 0.013 percent. He testified the accurate results were 0.012 percent and 0.013 percent. Later, in response to the hearing officer's question as to whether he was "[one] hundred percent sure of the blood alcohol concentration," the officer replied, "Well, if there's a discrepancy in the report, then I couldn't say I'm [one] hundred percent sure because it sounds to me like I did make an error on that." The hearing officer then asked [*5] the officer if he was "[one] hundred percent sure [he had] made an error?" The officer replied that it sounded like he had "made a mistake."

Corporal Bowman testified that he has been the PAS coordinating officer of the sheriff's department for the last two years. During that time, he has tested all of the PAS machines on a consistent basis and has never noted any test that has been out of compliance. He testified that the particular PAS device used on appellant had not tested outside the allowable standard within the past six months. He explained that the PAS device has an acceptable range of error of plus or minus 0.01 percent. Each time he calibrates a device, he conducts two tests and records two readings. If the device being tested provides a reading outside the allowable range of 0.01, the device is deemed out of compliance. The results of his calibration testing were reflected on a calibration log which was admitted into evidence. He testified that the "dry gas column" on the calibration log reflects the control sample and the "read column" reflects the actual reading given by the device being tested.

Appellant presented the expert testimony of Darrell Clardy, a toxicologist, [*6] who holds bachelors' degrees in chemistry and biochemistry, and a master's degree in science and biological physics. Clardy previously worked for the Orange County Sheriff's Department for 10 years and was licensed by the state as a forensic alcohol supervisor.

Clardy testified that he is familiar with the PAS testing device, the AlcoSensor IV. He stated it reads about a 0.01 percent high due to the way it calculates the alcohol concentration. He stated, "there's also evaporation of alcohol from the saliva that adds to a breath sample coming from the lungs, because alcohol's distributed through all the water of the body. And when you are measuring breath alcohol from the lungs, there's an additional component that comes from the saliva that is not related to the alveolar alcohol concentration. And a breath concentration is elevated by approximately a .01 percent due to evaporation from the saliva."

Clardy further testified that, in appellant's case, "given the fact that the measured results most reasonably are in the area of a .01 percent, his true alcohol concentration would be between a zero zero [0.00] and a zero one [0.01]. He'd be less than a .01. It would probably be a [*7] little bit greater than a zero zero [0.00]." He added that he could not say with any degree of scientific certainty that the blood alcohol was over a .01. Given the way it measures breath alcohol and the impact of the saliva, he opined that "it's very certain that it was not a .01."

At the conclusion of the testimony, appellant argued the DMV had not met its burden of demonstrating that the PAS device was in proper working order, the test was properly administered, and the operator was competent and qualified. Appellant also argued the inherent rate of error of the device precluded a finding that he was driving with a BAC of 0.01 percent or more. He argued there was no legal basis for the suspension of his driving privilege.

The hearing officer suspended appellant's driver's license for one year, finding that the officer had reasonable cause to believe appellant had been driving a vehicle with a BAC of 0.01 percent or more as measured by the PAS tests.

Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the trial court, arguing that the hearing officer abused his discretion by admitting the PAS results without a sufficient showing of reliability. He also contended the [*8] evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of the zero tolerance law. He argued the uncontroverted expert testimony established that an AlcoSensor IV PAS device is scientifically incapable of measuring an exact blood alcohol level due to the additive effect of saliva and the manner in which the machine calculates blood alcohol concentration. He added that the margin of error of the device rendered the results of 0.012 percent and 0.013 percent meaningless for purposes of finding a violation of the zero tolerance law. n2

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - -

n2 Appellant noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the United States Department of Transportation has adopted a 0.02 percent BAC as the zero tolerance threshold. (NHTSA, "Model Specifications for Evidential Breath Testing Devices," 49 Fed.Reg. 48854-48872 (Dec. 14, 1984), cited in Coniglio v. DMV (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 666, 677, fn. 8 (Coniglio).)


- - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - -


The DMV opposed appellant's petition, arguing that Corporal Bowman's testimony [*9] and Officer Williams' sworn statement and testimony satisfied the foundational elements required for admission of the PAS test results.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied appellant's petition, noting that "it is a close case." The court concluded the testimony of the two officers and the sworn statement of Officer Williams provided an adequate basis for believing the PAS test results were reliable and that appellant was driving with a BAC of 0.01 percent or greater.

On September 22, 2004, this court granted appellant's motion to stay the suspension of his driver's license pending this appeal.
Discussion

Appellant contends the suspension of his license must be set aside because insufficient evidence was presented in support of the finding that he was driving a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.01 percent or greater. He argues the trial court and DMV erred by admitting the PAS test results without a proper foundation, and the uncontradicted evidence showed that the PAS device was incapable of functioning at the sensitivity level required to establish a violation of the zero tolerance law based on a blood alcohol reading of 0.01 percent.

In ruling on an application for [*10] a writ of mandate following an order of suspension, the trial court is required to determine, based on its independent judgment, whether the weight of the evidence supported the administrative decision. (Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 456-457.) On appeal, we review the record to determine whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, resolving all evidentiary conflicts and drawing all legitimate and reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court's decision. We independently review the trial court's legal determinations. (Ibid.; Thompson v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 354, 358, 165 Cal. Rptr. 626.)

Section 23136, subdivision (a) provides that "it is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 years who has a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test, to drive a vehicle." Violation of the zero tolerance law subjects the licensee only to civil penalties, to be administered by the DMV through specified civil administrative procedures. (Coniglio, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 682.) Because [*11] the process is administrative, the evidentiary standards are somewhat relaxed. (Ibid.)

"It is permissible for the state to resort to summary suspension proceedings to regulate the use of the driving privilege and to protect the public against its abuse. . . . However, a driver's license is still a protectible property interest. . . . The considerations 'justifying summary proceedings are not so great as to allow the suspension of a license absent a showing by substantial competent evidence of facts supporting the suspension.'" (Coniglio, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 682, citations omitted.)

An officer's sworn statement that, when tested, a licensee's BAC was at a particular level is admissible, legally sufficient evidence that the BAC was indeed at that level if and only if there is a basis for believing that the device that measured blood alcohol was reliable. The foundational requirements for establishing the reliability of such test results consist of a showing that (1) the apparatus utilized was in proper working order; (2) the test was properly administered; and (3) the operator was competent and qualified. (People v. Williams (2002) 28 Cal.4th 408, 417; [*12] Conigilio, supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at p. 684.) It is the DMV's burden to show that the PAS test meets these general foundational requirements. (Coniglio, at p. 684.)

In the present case, the officer testified that he made a mistake in recording the PAS test results on his sworn report. The DMV does not contend the officer's sworn report, which erroneously lists the results as 0.12 percent and 0.13 percent, is admissible on the issue of the level of appellant's BAC.

As for the officer's oral testimony that the correct results of appellant's PAS tests were 0.012 percent and 0.013 percent, we conclude the foundational requirements for admitting this testimony are missing as well. n3 Although he testified that the correct results were 0.012 percent and 0.013 percent, it is clear from a reading of his entire testimony that he meant the results were "most likely" 0.012 percent and 0.013 percent. He testified that he had no independent recollection of his investigation of appellant, he could not remember the exact results of the PAS test, and he was not "[one] hundred percent sure" of appellant's BAC. His lack of independent recollection of the investigation and [*13] the PAS test results prevents the DMV from satisfying the second foundational element above, which includes as part of the proper administration of the test accurate reporting of the results.

- - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - -

n3 The Attorney General contends that Corporal Bowman's testimony established that the machine was in working order, and the remaining two foundational elements (the proper administration of the test and the competence of the operator) were established by Officer Williams' testimony and his sworn report stating that he administered the PAS test in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines and instructions, he had received training on the proper operation of the device and administration of the PAS test, and was competent and qualified to operate the device.

- - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - -

Even assuming the officer's testimony was admissible to show that appellant's actual PAS test results were 0.012 percent and 0.013 percent, we would nevertheless conclude that this evidence was insufficient to show that appellant's BAC was 0.01 percent or greater. [*14] Both the DMV's expert and the defense expert agreed the PAS device operates with a margin of error of plus or minus 0.01 percent. The defense expert (Clardy) testified that the PAS device typically renders results on the high side because of the way it detects blood alcohol. In his opinion, given the margin of error and the way the machine calculates the BAC, appellant's BAC was most likely between 0.00 and 0.01 percent, not 0.01 percent or greater. Significantly, the calibration log relied upon by Corporal Bowman to establish the reliability of the PAS device used on appellant corroborates Clardy's testimony.

Appellant was tested on May 10, 2003. The calibration log shows that in 10 out of 20 calibration tests conducted between January 5 and June 30, 2003, the PAS device used on appellant rendered readings that were 0.004 percent or more higher than the actual control sample. On two of those occasions within one month of appellant's test, on April 16 and May 27, 2003, the device read a full 0.01 percent too high. This means that 50 percent of the time, the device reported a BAC reading of 0.004 percent or more too high. In four other tests conducted during this same period, the [*15] device rendered readings that were 0.004 percent or more lower than the actual control sample. This means that 70 percent of the time (in 14 out of 20 tests), the device rendered readings that were inaccurate by 0.004 percent or more. In 13 out of 20 of the calibration tests (65 percent of the time), the device rendered readings that were 0.001 percent or more greater than the actual control sample. In only one out of the 20 calibration tests conducted during this period did the PAS device render a reading that matched the actual control sample.

Although the calibration log shows that the machine was operating within its allowable margin of error, because appellant's PAS test results were so close to 0.01, i.e., 0.012 percent and 0.013 percent, a reasonable trier of fact could not find by a preponderance of the evidence that his BAC was 0.01 percent or greater. The calibration log shows that it is equally likely that appellant's BAC was below 0.01 percent. Indeed, if appellant's PAS test results were too high by 0.004 percent or more, as in 50 percent of the calibration test readings, appellant's true BAC that evening would have been no greater than 0.008 percent or 0.009 percent, [*16] a level below that required by section 23136. We conclude, therefore, that the evidence was insufficient to support the suspension of his license.

The fact that the officer detected an odor of alcohol on appellant, as stated on the officer's sworn DS 367m report, does not assist respondent. Section 23136 requires more than a finding of the presence of alcohol. The statute requires a finding that the driver had a BAC of 0.01 percent or more. Here, as noted above, it is equally likely that appellant's BAC was below 0.01 percent.

Respondent argues that had the Legislature intended to allow the margin of error of the PAS device to be considered in determining whether a driver has violated the law, the zero tolerance law would have been drafted differently. Respondent argues: "Notably, the statute does not read 'a blood alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test, after allowing for the instrument's margin of error.'" We are not persuaded. Section 23136, subdivision (b) requires the trier of fact to find that the person has been driving "with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater." [*17] Given the property interest implicated by the loss of a driver's license, this finding must be made by a preponderance of the evidence. If we accepted respondent's argument that the margin of error of the machine may never be considered in evaluating the evidence, it is conceivable that the results of a PAS test rendered by a device operating outside the allowable margin of error could be used to support a finding that the driver's BAC was 0.01 percent or greater. Respondent's argument would also deprive a driver of a valid defense to a citation for violating the statute.

We also observe that had the Legislature intended to allow the suspension of a driver's license when "the presence of alcohol" is detected by a preliminary alcohol screening test, it could have said so in section 23136, subdivision (b). Instead, the statute requires a finding that the driver had a BAC of 0.01 percent or greater. The Legislature expressly allows the provisions of section 23136 to be enforced through the use of the PAS test most likely because of the convenience of the tool for law enforcement officers in the field and because of the express exemption of PAS devices from the implied consent law. (See [*18] §§ 23612, subds. (h) & (i); 23136, subd. (c)(3).) We do not read the permissive use of this device in section 23136 as authority for allowing an inaccurate BAC reading to support the suspension of a driver's license. The fact that law enforcement may use the device does not relieve the DMV of its burden of showing that the driver was in fact driving with a BAC of 0.01 percent or greater.

The judgment is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant appellant's petition and issue a peremptory writ commanding the DMV to set aside its order suspending appellant's driver's license. Appellant shall recover his costs on appeal.

COFFEE, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.

California DUI attorneys appreciate a well-reasoned decision.

San Diego California DUI defense attorney David Thompson's latest DUI Murder case

12/17/07 San Diego California DUI lawyer makes good arguments but...

SAN DIEGO Drunk Driving Attorney news

A San Diego man accused of San Diego California DUI - drunk driving and causing a freeway collision that killed a 75-year-old woman was ordered Monday to stand trial for murder and other charges.

La Mesa resident John Joseph Taskey Jr., 46 – who has five previous convictions for California DUI or drunk driving – now faces charges of second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter and felony San Diego California DUI driving under the influence stemming from the Sept. 13 San Diego California DUI crash.

At the end of a morning San Diego California DUI hearing, San Diego Superior Court Judge Roger Krauel ruled that prosecutors had presented enough evidence for Taskey to be tried. If convicted, he could be sentenced to more than 15 years to life in prison. He remains jailed with bail set at $1 million.

According to testimony, Rosa A. Degerman of San Diego was riding in a car with several family members on westbound Interstate 8 when the vehicle was rear-ended by a Chevrolet pickup near West Mission Bay Drive shortly after 6:30 p.m.

The family was headed to the coast to watch the sunset.

Degerman suffered severe internal injuries and died at a hospital the next morning. Two other family members also were injured: an 11-year-old girl's shoulder was broken, and a man suffered a concussion.

A San Diego California DUI California Highway Patrol officer testified he was called to the San Diego California DUI crash site where he spoke with Taskey. The San Diego California DUI officer said he could smell alcohol on Taskey's breath.

His San Diego California DUI blood-alcohol content was measured at 0.10 percent about two hours after the collision. The San Diego California DUI legal limit in California is 0.08 percent.

San Diego California DUI Deputy District Attorney David Grapilon told the judge that Taskey was driving on a suspended license at the time of the collision. In 2003, Taskey attended a panel presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and was warned about the dangers of San Diego California DUI - drinking and driving.

San Diego California DUI Defense Lawyer David Thompson brilliantly argued unsuccessfully that San Diego California DUI prosecutors did not present any evidence that Taskey was driving recklessly, contending that he should therefore not be tried for second-degree murder.

Excellent San Diego California DUI Defense Attorney Thompson plausibly said the evidence showed Taskey was likely surprised by a sudden halt in the flow of traffic, which caused him to crash at the time of the San Diego California DUI .

Tips for spotting a California DUI driver

California DUI lawyer news

According to statistics released by the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles, more than 1,597 people were killed and 31,099 were injured in 2006.

That, the statistics say, makes it the eighth year in a row that California DUI or alcohol-related deaths and injuries have increased in the state.

Nationally, the trend shows an increase. A joint CHP/Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) press release showed that more than 17,602 California Drunk Driving / DUI-related fatalities occurred in 2006; in 2005, it was 17,590.


’Law enforcement can only do so much,’ Christopher J. Murphy, OTS director, said in a recent press release.

In order to help area California DUI law enforcement agencies, the OTS has allocated more than $4.8 million to fund 38 DUI Avoid campaigns in 41 counties, involving the CHP and more than 400 police and sheriff’s departments.

The grant funding, Murphy said in the press release, will help cover the expenses of officers’ overtime while working a DUI checkpoint or saturation patrol.



Officer Scott Neimeth, Anderson Police Department traffic services unit officer, said in the same press release that ’Avoid the 31’ DUI patrols and checkpoints will begin on Dec. 18 and will continue throughout the next few weeks to the New Year holiday.

Neimeth explained in the press release that the ’31’ refers to the North State Regional Avoid law enforcement agencies: the CHP; the sheriff’s departments of Butte, Glenn, Shasta, Siskiyou and Tehama counties; and local police departments.

In the press release, Murphy said that California is committed to reducing the number of DUI-related deaths and injuries.



Which is why they’re giving California DUI law enforcement agencies the grant money for California DUI checkpoints and California DUI saturation patrols.

The public can help California DUI law enforcement, as well: All it takes is picking up the phone and dialing 911 when encountering a California DUI driver.

Tips for spotting a California DUI driver include watching for drivers who:

*��Appear to be impaired or drinking in the car;

*��Turn with a wide radius or straddle the center of the road or lane marker;

*��Almost strike another object or vehicle and weave or zigzag across the road;

*��Turn abruptly or illegally and drive slower than 10 mph below the speed limit;

*��Follow others too closely, drift or move in a straight line at an angle and brake erratically; and

*��Drive into opposing or crossing traffic or drive with headlights off.


California DUI attorneys tell people if they don't do the above acts, they may not be stopped.

California DUI attorney enforcement news

California DUI lawyer enforcement news

Law enforcement officials throughout the Bay Area arrested 73 suspected drunken drivers during the first 24 hours of their annual DUI enforcement campaign, California Highway Patrol Sgt. Les Bishop reported Sunday.

The Bay Area Regional Avoid Program began at 12:01 a.m. Friday when officers from 125 law enforcement agencies began targeting drivers suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, Bishop reported.

Enforcement efforts will continue for the next 19 days.

According to preliminary reports, there have been no deaths on Bay Area roadways attributed to drunk driving this holiday season, Bishop reported.

Last year, 3,037 suspected drunken drivers were arrested during the 20-day enforcement effort, but there were still seven DUI-related deaths.



Don't let drinking, driving spoil the holidays

Holiday celebrations have many important ingredients: family, friends and good times. But if your celebrations include alcohol, don't forget the most important ingredient of all, the designated driver.

According to a recent survey conducted by Nielsen Media Research, 154 million American adults have been a designated driver or been driven home by one ... that's equal to about half of the U.S. population.


ADVERTISEMENT

Our nation is making progress in the fight against drunk driving. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drunk-driving fatalities have declined 36 percent since 1982.

Matesich Distributing Co. and Anheuser-Busch thank all adults who choose to be or use a designated driver during the holiday season. Not only do designated drivers help save lives, using or being one shows you care about your friends, family, colleagues and community.
Demonstrate your appreciation for people you know who have been a designated driver by logging onto www.whosyourbud.com and sending an electronic "thank you."

Remember, asking "Who's Your Bud?" -- the designated driver -- before celebrating will keep us all safe ... because responsibility matters.

Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive California DUI Checkpoint

California DUI attorney checkpoint damage

Twenty-two people were arrested Saturday during a Rancho Mirage Police Department DUI/Driver's License Safety Checkpoint on Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive, according to a department release.

The goal of the California DUI checkpoint was to screen for those driving while intoxicated, or those who are unlicensed or suspended - following a number of collisions involving these types of drivers.

A total of 759 cars passed through the California DUI checkpoint, and 729 of them were screened, the release showed. Of that, three drivers were arrested for California DUI Driving under the Influence of alcohol or drugs, and another 25 California DUI field sobriety tests were conducted.

The California DUI checkpoint operation was made possible through Special Distribution Funds established by Senate Bill 621, with funds paid by the Agua Caliente Indians. The grant provides funding for traffic safety and California DUI enforcement programs, according to the release.

The department encourages those who choose to drink alcoholic beverages to designate a sober driver before getting into a vehicle.

Crackdown in the heart of California - DUI saturation patrols

California DUI criminal attorney - california drunk driving defense lawyer update

43 law enforcement agencies across the Central Valley are taking part in a statewide California DUI campaign to take as many California DUI drunk drivers off of the road as they can.

For the next three weeks, California DUI police officers from Madera to Kern counties will be teaming up to for the toughest DUI enforcement ever.

Agencies up and down the Valley have joined together for the first time to saturate the Central Valley roadways, and to try to get California DUI impaired drivers off the streets.

On Friday night, 32 California DUI drunk drivers were arrested, up from 27 at the same time last year.

The California DUI crackdown is paid for by a nearly $400,000 dollar AVOID grant from the State Office of Traffic Safety.

"You're going to get arrested if you blow a .08," said Officer David Donaldson from the Fresno Police Department.

On top of the California DUI saturation patrols and checkpoints, some agencies are also able to buy equipment to help catch California DUI drunk drivers.

For example, the city of Visalia is planning on buying a truck that will help them set up and run DUI checkpoints.

Statewide California DUI crackdown in force

California DUI criminal defense lawyer news


California DUI / drunk driving / drugged drivers will come under intense police scrutiny Friday as the "Avoid the 18" campaign starts its winter holiday California DUI crackdown.

Named for the number of Monterey County law enforcement agencies involved, the 19-day enforcement push ends at midnight New Year's Day, said Salinas Police Sgt. Andy Miller, campaign coordinator.

The campaign will conduct California DUI sobriety checkpoints and add patrols to seek out California DUI drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

"It's easy to avoid us," Miller said. "Just drive stone-cold sober every single time."

In 2006, Avoid the 18 departments brought in 203 people suspected of driving under the influence during the holiday crackdown. No DUI-related deaths occurred during the 18-day enforcement period.

This year, the agencies have the following California DUI plans:


California Highway Patrol: Sobriety checkpoint in north Monterey County on Friday; maximum enforcement on county highways.

Greenfield police: Sobriety checkpoints Dec. 21 and 28; patrol hours adjusted to cover prime DUI times.

Seaside police: Sobriety checkpoint Dec. 21; 24-hour DUI saturation patrols.

Carmel police: Patrol hours adjusted to cover prime DUI times.

Monterey police: Overtime enforcement teams between 7 p.m. and 3 a.m.
In addition, Officer Jesus Yanez of the King City police - who has made 126 DUI arrests so far this year - will be on duty throughout the holidays, said King City police Capt. Bruce Miller.

"We never have had an officer achieve such a high number of DUI arrests in the history of King City," Miller said.

Avoid the 18 is sponsored by the Monterey County Chief Law Enforcement Officers' Association and paid for by the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The campaign joins 41 similar county-wide efforts in California. The Avoid movement began in 1973 in Santa Clara County with Avoid the 13.


The chances of California DUI drunk drivers getting caught this holiday season in the central San Joaquin Valley went up Friday with the deployment of a first-ever six-county anti-DUI campaign involving 53 California DUI law enforcement agencies.

"And if you do get stopped, consider yourself lucky," said Hanford police Chief Carlos Mestas, because it's better than causing an accident.

Mestas was among a group of top law enforcement officials from Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Madera counties who turned out for a news conference Friday at the Clovis Police Department to talk about the campaign, known as AVOID. Kern and Merced counties are also involved in the AVOID California DUI operations.

For the last two years, the campaign had been called "AVOID the 17," getting its name from the 17 local and state law enforcement agencies from Fresno and Madera counties that participated.

Clovis police Chief Bob Keyes said this is the third year locally for the AVOID program. Funding comes from the state's Office of Traffic Safety, and agencies statewide are organizing AVOID operations. The state money covers officer overtime for sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrols and other anti-DUI efforts.

During the first two years of AVOID the 17, Keyes said officers set up 41 California DUI sobriety checkpoints and 62 saturation patrol operations, arrested 1,420 DUI suspects and impounded 2,103 vehicles.

Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth Egan said 100% of accidents involving DUI suspects can be prevented if people just don't drive when they have been drinking or using drugs.

Use a designated driver, she said.

Last year, she said, her office filed 7,485 complaints for DUI cases. Two out of five California DUI misdemeanor cases filed by her office involve DUI, she said.

Greg Anderson, one of Egan's prosecutors, said a first conviction for a DUI offense can be costly in many ways, including jail time of up to six months and a fine of as much as $1,000.

California DUI Offenders also face their driving privileges being suspended or restricted and, if they are placed on probation, a long list of stiff probation terms.

The AVOID campaign is scheduled to run through Jan. 1.


Increased DUI patrols in an effort to keep the streets safe.

Friday began the National Drunk Driving Awareness Mobilization period, which continues until Jan. 1, said Traffic Sgt. John Mattke of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Victorville station.

As a kickoff to the heightened enforcement, there will be a DUI checkpoint in Victorville tonight between the hours of 7 p.m. and 3 a.m. Sunday, as well as saturation patrols. That trend will continue throughout the county in this enforcement period, as 14 checkpoints and an additional 70 patrols are to be added countywide, Mattke said.

“Every city in the county will be participating and the overall goal is to prevent alcohol-related collisions,” Mattke said.

There will also be underage drinking programs taking place at this time, as Mattke indicated that Victorville ranked 12th in a look at 103 comparably-sized cities in California for the most underage California DUI alcohol-related crashes.

“With number one on that ranking being the worst, that’s a big concern. So, do we still have a problem? Yes we do,” Mattke said.
Still, across the board, early indications indicate a reduction in California DUI alcohol-related collisions, Mattke said.

The California DUI checkpoint is funded through a $597,000 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Mattke added.

Authorities encourage motorists to report California DUI drunk drivers.

California DUI criminal defense attorneys caution against unreasonable search and seizures.

Barstow California DUI sting

defense lawyers

Efforts to crack down on California DUI drunken drivers on Barstow’s streets, highways and intestates during the holidays have already begun.

The Barstow Police Department started its major California DUI enforcement efforts on Friday. They will continue until the beginning of 2007, according to the California DUI police. The operation’s primary focus is to keep drunken drivers off our streets by arresting drivers through DUI saturation patrols and DUI checkpoints. Officer Chris Cochran with the California Office of Traffic Safety said the two operations produce different outcomes.

“The patrols catch more active drunken drivers. However the checkpoints do a much better job at educating and providing a deterrent effect,” he said. “We’re all about keeping people from getting killed, not just catching California DUI drunken drivers.”

Last year, nearly 1,600 people were killed in alochol-related collisions. Cochran said there is an increase of alcohol-related fatalities during the two-week period leading up to Christmas and New Years Day. He said a combination of parties, celebrations, traveling to places, weather and a few drinks place a lot of people on the road who should not be. Fatalities during the holiday period are high compared to the rest of the year. However, Cochran said the most California DUI fatalities occur over the Labor Day weekend in September.

The California DUI police department’s program is part of the countywide “Avoid the 25” task force. The task force consists of 25 agencies across the county, including the California Highway Patrol, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Officers from alcohol beverage control will concentrate efforts to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors by conducting sting operations throughout the county to catch people buying and selling alcohol to those under 21.

Statewide efforts to reduce California DUI drunken driving will start on Saturday and run through the end of the year. According to the CHP, more the 450 agencies across the state will conduct checkpoints. During some periods, the CHP will have nearly 80 percent of its officers on the roadways looking for California DUI drunken drivers.

Holiday DUI update for California DUI criminal defense lawyers

Police Increase DUI Checkpoints, Patrols
December 14, 2007 California DUI news


LOS ANGELES -- As the holiday party season ramps up, Southland law enforcement agencies will be out in force beginning tonight as part of a three-week, multi-agency task force effort to fight California DUI drunken driving, authorities said.

In Los Angeles County, the California DUI Avoid DUI task forces will conduct nearly three dozen checkpoints and nearly 200 extra patrols during the next three weeks, Investigator Sergio Borbon of the Gardena Police Department said.

The three-week enforcement effort kicks off Friday night with California DUI checkpoints in Southgate, Burbank and Gardena and saturation patrols in Crescenta Valley, Baldwin Park, Newhall and Central Los Angeles, California DUI police said.

There will also be a California DUI stakeout conducted by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department in Walnut.

The local campaign is part of a comprehensive state and national effort to fight California DUI drunk driving, Borbon said.

The state Office of Traffic Safety is providing grant funding for the Avoid DUI program's efforts, including pay for officers working overtime on California DUI sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols.

OTS Director Christopher J. Murphy urged people to call 911 if they suspect someone is California DUI or driving impaired.

"Law enforcement can only do so much," Murphy said. "Knowing that other motorists are going to report drunk drivers is a significant deterrent ... one phone call can really save a life."

Alcohol-related deaths increased in California in 2006 for the eighth year in a row. Last year, 300 people were killed and 7,718 were injured in alcohol-involved crashes in Los Angeles County alone. California DUI attorneys know about this.

California DUI stories

California DUI attorney newsO

A tragic night defines anti-DUI leader's mission
12/14/2007 03:22:00 AM PST

Cpl. Robert Duvall of the Contra Costa Sheriff's Office heads the county's... (NADER KHOURI/STAFF)«1»In a memory of an accident scene that the years cannot erase, Contra Costa sheriff's Cpl. Robert Duvall still shudders when thinking about Jan. 7, 1994.
It was a blink of time that took lives and gave Duvall's life a new meaning.

The family's vehicle had been struck on the passenger side at 70 mph by one of two drivers racing on San Pablo Avenue, as the family car turned onto Hilltop Drive. One of the racers had run a red light, according to Duvall and Richmond police.

Duvall, then a Richmond fire paramedic who was sent to the scene, first saw the racer's vehicle and then the family's vehicle, which had been knocked into a ravine. It had flipped, landing on the wheels.

A boy inside was screaming, saying his sister with him in the back seat was dead. A woman in the front, Doreen Roberts, 37, of Pinole, was dead. Another woman in the front was critically injured. An occupant of the other car, Jerald Tyler, 17, of El Sobrante, also died.

Duvall long ago discarded the old newspaper story about it, but he still gets cold chills.

Tabitha Rajen, 2, of San Pablo, had blonde hair but eyes that did not register. Duvall gently removed her and took her up the hill, where firefighters from four engines moved like clockwork, their urgency seemingly chaotic to the untrained eye.

"The scene came to a stop," Duvall recalled, as all eyes locked onto him and Tabitha. "Everybody just paused."

She was taken to what was then Brookside Hospital in San Pablo.

Duvall walked by Room 4, where her body lay beneath a sheet.
He grabbed a teddy bear, tucked it beneath her arm, walked outside to his emergency vehicle and, along with his partner, sat on the bumper and wept.

It turned out that one of the racers had been smoking marijuana.

So began Duvall's mission: To stop every single impaired driver he would ever see again.

"Being a paramedic is a very honorable profession. I love saving lives," Duvall said. "But it's a purely reactionary job."

He entered police work.

Duvall joined the Sheriff's Office in 1998, became an Orinda police officer, formed the city's Traffic Safety Unit and became DUI coordinator.

He went on to work as a county parole officer and now is a deputy investigator in the Contra Costa Coroner's Office. In addition, he is still a licensed paramedic.

In 2005 Duvall took over county's Avoid the 25 anti-DUI campaign, so named for the county's 25 law enforcement agencies.

It is a role in which Duvall is in his element. The tag on his personal vehicle reads: "AVOID25."

Duvall's superiors asked Sheriff Warren Rupf to make Duvall the permanent coordinator. The state's Office of Traffic Safety noted that the Contra Costa "Avoid" campaign has become one of the smoothest-run in the state. He manages a $290,000 state grant and has planned and supervised DUI checkpoints and warrant sweeps involving hundreds of officers.

Dozens of officers kick off the 2007 campaign tonight in what they call saturation patrols, specifically to detect and arrest impaired drivers, the local complement of similar efforts in all nine Bay Area counties, including the California Highway Patrol's Maximum Enforcement Period operations.

If they look, then they will find them.

A total of 4,056 adults and juveniles were arrested on suspicion of DUI in 2006, including 116 felony offenses. A total of 38 people died in alcohol-related crashes on county roads last year, and 618 were injured.

This year, DUI checkpoints are planned in Concord tonight; in San Pablo on Saturday; in Lafayette on Dec. 27; and in Hercules on Dec. 29. A countywide DUI warrant sweep will be Thursday.


Next California drunk driving lawyer story:

Candle flames flickered bravely in the chill air Wednesday night outside the Community and Cultural Center as a group of concerned citizens - adults, teens, children and even a dog - joined together to remember the victims of drunk drivers and to raise awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving.

Signs carried by participants proclaimed: "Addiction is not a moral issue, it's a disease," "Every 28 minutes a drunk driver kills in the U.S," "Friends don't let friends drink and drive," "Remember those affected by drunk drivers."

The group of more than 25 included Morgan Hill Mayor Steve Tate and Police Chief Bruce Cumming, as well as several out-of-towners who had heard about the event and wanted to join in.

Organizers hoped to raise awareness of the issue in advance of the annual Avoid the 13 campaign which kicks off today. Law enforcement agencies all over Santa Clara County are stepping up DUI enforcement during the holiday period, typically a dangerous time of year on the roadways.

Wednesday evening's vigil was a collaboration between the Community Substance Abuse Prevention Partnership and the Morgan Hill Police Department. Francisco Dominguez, coordinator for the partnership, said he was pleased at the turnout, especially the number of teenagers who participated.

Bill Nolan, the executive director of the Nolan Foundation, a community advocacy organization promoting community collaboration and safety awareness, came from Milpitas to attend the vigil.

"It's really good to see young people taking a step forward to stop drinking and driving," he said.

Mark Soto, a substance abuse counselor in Santa Cruz County, said he was invited to the vigil by a friend, and could relate the anti-DUI holiday message as in his work he sees people struggling with the devastating effects of drinking and driving.

He told the teens in the crowd that their participation in the event was a form of taking control, rather than allowing alcohol or drugs to take control of them.

Cumming told the crowd that the number of DUI accidents and arrests is "ridiculous for a town of this size." He added that there were 10 DUI arrests the previous weekend.

California DUI lawyers associate.

Rock Star Scott Weiland charged with California DUI!

California DUI criminal defense lawyer news

Weiland Formerly Charged with California DUI

Rocker Scott Weiland has formally been charged with California DUI
driving under the influence of drugs with a prior California DUI
conviction.

The Velvet Revolver frontman was arrested on November 21 after an accident on a California highway.

Police claimed Weiland showed "signs of impairment" and California DUI
failed sobriety tests, and that he refused to take a legally required California DUI
blood or urine test.

On Wednesday, Los Angeles City Attorney spokesman Frank Mateljan confirmed the singer now faces up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted of the California DUI.

Weiland's arraignment for the California DUI
is set for Thursday.

The star has previously been convicted of California DUI
drunk driving in 2003 and for buying crack cocaine in 1995. He was charged with domestic violence in 2001.

Expect a top California DUI criminal defense attorney to handle this.

California DUI for County Supervisor

California DUI attorney news

A Solano County supervisor was arrested on suspicion of California DUI drunken driving, Vacaville police said Wednesday.

Supervisor Mike Reagan, 58, of Vacaville was pulled over for having expired registration about 11 p.m. Friday at Youngsdale Drive near Nut Tree Road while driving his 2002 Pontiac Grand Prix, police Lt. Randy Weaver said.

The officer determined that Reagan showed signs of being California DUI intoxicated and placed him under arrest for California DUI.

A California DUI breath test at the Vacaville Police Department showed that Weaver's blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal limit of 0.08 percent, said Weaver, who declined to release the exact figure.
He is due in court Jan. 25 for charges of California DUI .

In a statement, Reagan acknowledged that he had been pulled over for a "nonmoving violation" and that "it was determined that I may have had a blood-alcohol level that was at or above the legal limit for driving in California."

Reagan said he had been stopped after attending a holiday event with his wife for a nonprofit philanthropic foundation "where wine was served with dinner." No California DUI defense lawyer has spoken on his behalf yet.

Airlines sues New Mexico over alcohol regulation (DWI news)

California DUI attorney news

Airline Suing N.M. Over Booze: US Airways challenges state's regulation of alcohol on flights

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Los Angeles California DUI lawyer news

US Airways is suing New Mexico, maintaining that the state's attempts to regulate the airline's alcohol service violates federal law.

A lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court states that New Mexico does not have the authority to regulate US Airways' on-board alcohol service, require US Airways to adopt certain alcohol training procedures or issue citations and enforce alcohol-related sanctions.

"Fundamentally, we're saying the regulation of alcohol on board airlines is the purview of the federal government," said US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader.

Last month the state Regulation and Licensing Department denied the airline a license to serve alcohol on New Mexico flights.

US Airways is seeking a declaration that New Mexico's administration of its Liquor Control Act against the airline is "preempted, invalid and unlawful." It also wants an injunction against the state from further enforcement.

The state has cited US Airways twice this year for overserving alcohol to passengers on New Mexico flights -- including Dana Papst, who killed himself and five members of a Las Vegas, N.M., family while driving drunk and the wrong way on Interstate 25 near Santa Fe.

Papst had two drinks on his US Airways flight, and other passengers told state investigators he appeared intoxicated before he was served.

Named as defendants in the suit are Edward Lopez, former superintendent of Regulation and Licensing, and Gary Tomada, head of the department's Alcohol and Gaming Division.

The two men signed off on the decision to deny US Airways a license on Nov. 15. Lopez said at the time his department could not reasonably conclude that approval of a liquor license for US Airways "would protect the public health and safety of New Mexico."

Regulation and Licensing spokesman Bob Hagan declined to comment Tuesday: "We were served with the lawsuit today and have not yet had a chance to review it."

A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman also declined comment. "It would be inappropriate for us to comment on a lawsuit we haven't seen and to which we're not a party," said communications manager Ian Gregor.

Alcoholic beverages served by US Airways on New Mexico flights are intended for use "in the course of interstate air transportation that has or will occur within the exclusive federal jurisdiction of United States airspace," the suit argues.

The suit says that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 gives the federal government, through the Department of Transportation, exclusive authority to regulate all aspects of airline safety and service by barring states from enacting or enforcing any law related to the price, routes or services of an airline. This includes food and beverage service, the airline maintains.

The suit says: "These (state) laws, if allowed to stand, threaten to enmesh the Nation's airlines in a crazyquilt of regulation in which each state is allowed to preside over a unique jurisdictional patch of its own making."

US Airlines' Rader said, "It is, in our view, a very legal issue, as opposed to any kind of message to the state of New Mexico."

In its ruling denying US Airways a license, the state noted its two 2007 citations to the airline for overserving passengers, including Papst. A store that sold beer to Papst after he got off the flight also has been cited.

The state also took into consideration eyewitness accounts from two Regulation and Licensing employees who say they saw US Airways serve alcohol to an intoxicated passenger during a November flight from Phoenix to San Diego.

After the Papst incident, the state kicked off an investigation into the liquor license status of all airlines serving New Mexico. It ultimately issued orders to U.S. Airways, Northwest Airlines and Frontier Airlines to stop serving alcohol on New Mexico flights until they received licenses.

US Airways received a 90-day temporary license in March, which was not renewed. Northwest received a license in May, while Frontier has chosen not to serve alcohol on New Mexico flights.

US Airways has cooperated with the state over the past year in its application for a liquor license, including implementing parts of the state's alcohol server training materials in US Airways' flight attendant training, because "we do business in New Mexico and understand how serious the drunk driving problem is in New Mexico," Rader said.

But, she added, "I don't think this (the arguments in the lawsuit) is anything new. From the very beginning this has been our position."

An investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration into the Papst incident cleared US Airways of wrongdoing. California DUI lawyers realize they may have to help passengers who become motorists.

California DUI checkpoint update - Christmas drunk driving lawyers

California DUI attorney news & criminal defense lawyer info

California DUI law enforcement agencies throughout the Sacramento region will be conducting California DUI driving under the influence programs beginning Friday.

Roseville police will hold a California DUI sobriety and driver's license checkpoint Friday night at an undisclosed location where there have been a "significant number of impaired driving collisions and arrests," California DUI police stated in a California DUI news release.

In Yolo County, California Drunk driving / DUI operations will be held every weekend through New Year's Eve.

The California DUI enforcement effort begins Friday, when multiple California DUI law enforcement agencies will conduct a California Drunk Driving / DUI checkpoint and California DUIsaturation patrols between 9 p.m. Friday and 3 a.m. Saturday in Woodland, California DUI police stated in a news release.

California DUI criminal defense lawyers appreciate these efforts.

California DUI arrestees posted in Orange County now

California DUI Attorneys needed:

California DUI ARRESTS

List of persons arrested for California drunk driving posted by the Daily Pilot.

Daily Pilot's EDITOR’S NOTE: The following are people who have been arrested on suspicion of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. All are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2007/12/12/publicsafety/dpt-duis12.txt

California DUI lawyers who use jail mail will likely contact those people arrested for California DUI.

9 years prison possible for California DUI driver who ran over psychiatrist

A California woman accused in the California DUI /drunk driving death of a prominent doctor makes a surprising plea this morning.

21-year-old Heather Hulsey pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter, California DUI and hit and run. Hulsey is accused of running over Dr. Ronald Shlensky, a Montecito psychiatrist.

While awaiting trial, Hulsey was arrested again for public intoxication at a UC Santa Barbara function. A judge ordered Hulsey to live in a sober living home.

"I would certainly hope that she's learned something from the fact that she was put in custody after the UCSB incident, and the fact that she is being monitored," said Arnis Tolks, Santa Barbara County California DUI/ Drunk Driving Prosecuting Lawyer.

Hulsey could spend up to nine years in prison. She is scheduled to be sentenced in February. Her California DUI criminal defense attorney will present mitigation.

Dan Rathers involved in DUI video

California DUI attorneys

— A familiar face will be joining the Troy and Alana Pack Foundations video for high school students on the dangers of drinking and driving.
Former CBS Evening News Anchor Dan Rather has signed on to work on Graduation Day, a film that chronicles four teens on their graduation night in pseudo-reality style.

Rather will serve as a host and narrator for the film and will appear periodically throughout.

The foundation was started by Bob and Carmen Pack of Danville whose children, Troy, 10, and Alana, 7, were killed by a drunk driver in October 2003. The Packs have been working with University of Southern California graduate film school alumni on the half-hour video for a year.

Former Prison Break actor Lane Garrison, who was recently sentenced to 40 months prison for his role in a fatal drunk driving accident, has already taped a testimonial for the film.

Rathers involvement will bring credibility, professionalism and authority to the short movie, Bob Pack said Monday.

Pack said they approached a few New York-based network news anchors and were happily surprised when they learned Rather agreed to participate.

I am excited and proud to be part of such a worthy film project, Rather said in a news release. I know it will have a positive impact on millions of young lives.

Pack, the filmmakers and two actors from the film will travel to New York today and will tape Rathers segments on Thursday in a studio.

CHP conference to discuss DUI in California

California DUI summit - California DUI lawyers at lengths taken by powers at be:

The Blythe CHP Area will host the Division Area Commanders Conference, which will be held Dec. 12-13, 2007. The respective commanders from the 19 different areas within the CHP Border Division will be present, along with members of top management, to discuss important issues that affect not only the California Highway Patrol, but also the citizens of California.

The two-day conference will cover issues pertaining to traffic safety, which include DUI / Drunk Driving, speed and seatbelt enforcement, recruitment of personnel, workers compensation and a review of emergency operations relating to the recent wildfires in Southern California.

The CHP's Border Division is one of eight divisions that make up the California Highway Patrol. A few of the 19 CHP areas within Border Division are San Diego, Oceanside, Santa Ana, Westminster, Blythe, Indio, El Centro and El Cajon.

California DUI attorneys will deal with whatever they put out there.

California DUI saturation patrols out soon

California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer news

Anti-DUI program kicks off Friday

12/11/2007


The annual "Avoid the 18" program will kick off Friday as law enforcement officers try to reduce accidents caused by California drunk or drugged drivers.
The winter holiday crackdown is a 19-day California DUI enforcement effort that will end on New Years Day.

California DUI officers expect an increase in the usual number of traffic stops with an increase in California drunk driving sobriety and driver's license checkpoints, in-city California DUI patrols and maximum enforcement by the California Highway Patrol.

Seaside police plan a California DUI sobriety checkpoint for Dec. 21. California DUI Police in Greenfield have scheduled California DUI checkpoints for two consecutive Fridays, starting Dec. 21.

All departments will emphasize California DUI enforcement with officers on regular beats. Several departments have special plans aimed at drumming up business for California DUI criminal defense attorneys.

Carmel California police will adjust patrol hours to cover prime California DUI times.

Monterey Police Department will field two-officer California DUI / drunk driving / DWI enforcement teams on overtime between 7 p.m. and 3 a.m.

California DWI Police in Greenfield will adjust patrol hours for prime California DUI times.

Seaside police plan California DUI saturation patrols throughout the campaign, will adjust hours to cover prime California DUI times and have posted overtime.

Officer Jesus Yanez of the King City police will be on duty throughout the holidays, said Capt. Bruce Miller. Yanez has made 126 DUI arrests since the beginning of the year. "We never have had an officer achieve such a high number of California DUI arrests in the history of King City," he said. Yanez is a California drunk driving training officer, and Miller expects him to pass his expertise along to other California Drunk Driving officers.

California DUI attorneys will see an increase in calls requesting assistance.

Sheriff pleads not guilty to California Drunk Driving / DUI

California DUI lawyer news - California DUI attorney update on Sheriff's California Drunk Driving / DUI:

December 11, 2007

The former San Joaquin County sheriff, charged with California Drunk Driving / DUI, choose not to show up to a California Drunk Driving Manteca courtroom Monday.

Baxter Dunn, who is facing two misdemeanor charges relating to a California Drunk Driving / DUI crash, was not required to attend in person. Instead, his California Drunk Driving / DUI criminal defense lawyer entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.

The CHP says the former sheriff failed several California Drunk Driving sobriety tests after he rear-ended a Ceres man on Highway 120 two weeks ago.

The original charges were California Drunk Driving / DUI felonies. But Dunn's California Drunk Driving / DUI criminal defense attorney, Albert Eliis, denies any special treatment.

"In this case, I believe the district attorney's office appropriately looked at the reports, the charges, and I don't see this case as different from any of the others that I've seen in 30 years of practice," he said.

Dunn is currently on federal probation after he plead guilty to a public corruption scheme two years ago, involving mail fraud and extortion.

His pre-trial hearing in the California Drunk Driving / DUI case is January 2nd.

Bicyclist killed by California DUI driver

California DUI defense attorney update

A woman was arrested on suspicion of gross vehicular manslaughter and DUI after the vehicle she was driving fatally struck a 38-year- old Hemet man riding a bike, authorities said Monday.

The victim, Danny Walton, was traveling in the 100 block of North Yale Street about 8 last night when he was struck, according to Hemet police Sgt. Joe Nevarez.

Walton was taken to Hemet Valley Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 11:44 p.m., according to the Riverside County coroner's office.

The motorist, Desiree Bliss, 28, told officers she was distracted by something behind her and looked back, then returned her attention to the road just as the vehicle struck the bicyclist, Nevarez said.

The California DUI defense lawyer has not yet been assigned.

16 years prison for killing 2 people in California DUI crash

California Drunk Driving DUI criminal lawyer info

A Fullerton California man who killed two people when he rammed their car off the road while driving drunk was sentenced Friday to 16 years and four months in prison.

Brandon Friend, 22, was on probation and was driving on a suspended license when he raced his late-model BMW on an Irvine street on July 7, 2004 and crashed into a classic MGB driven by George Macchiorola Jr., 51, of Aliso Viejo.

Deputy District Attorney Susan Price said Friend had a blood-alcohol level of .23 – nearly three times the legal limit.

Macchiorola's orange roadster was knocked off the road and into a tree and a light pole. Firemen cut Macchiorola and passenger Debbie D. Scannell, 42, of Irvine, out of the wreckage but they died soon afterward from massive internal injuries.

Michael Lumary, 63, Friend's grandfather, tried to take the blame for the crash to protect his grandson after Friend fled from the scene. Lumary was convicted in September of obstructing justice and accessory after the fact.

The California DUI attorney has yet to make a statement. Sentencing was delayed until next Friday. Lumary faces a possible three-year term in prison.

California DUI accident results in felony hit & run

California criminal defense lawyer news

Twain Harte, California -- The CHP says 20-year-old Craig Koenig of Sonora was arrested for DUI after driving off an embankment while traveling on Twain Harte Drive Sunday night.

A passenger, 19-year-old Edward Cooper of Mi Wuk Village, suffered major face and head lacerations after his head traveled through the front windshield. An unidentified 17-year-old was also in the vehicle and reported minor injuries.

The CHP says all three fled the scene following the accident. Cooper was located walking down Twain Harte Drive, and was transported to Sonora Regional Medical Center.

Koenig and the juvenile were located less than a mile from the accident in the yard of a private residence. Koenig faces charges of felony California DUI and felony hit and run.

The California DUI criminal defense attorney has not yet appeared in the case.

County Supervisor Popped for a California DUI / drunk driving

California drunk driving criminal defense lawyer news

County Supervisor Mike Reagan was arrested by Vacaville Police Friday evening on suspicion of drunk driving & California DUI.

Reagan issued an apology statement to media today saying he had been pulled over for a "non-moving violation" and that during the course of the stop, the officer determined that he "may have had a blood alcohol level" above the legal limit for driving in California.

His statement did not say what his blood alcohol level was and police would say only that a breath test administered at the police department showed his blood alcohol levels was in excess of .08, the legal limit.

According to police, Reagan was pulled over initially because of an expired registration tag on his vehicle. After the officer observed "signs that he was under the influence of alcohol," Reagan was arrested and taken to the police department, police officials said.

"I was pulled over following my attendance with my wife at a holiday event with a non-profit philanthropic foundation in our community where wine was served with dinner," Reagan's statement reads. "I take full and complete responsibility for my actions, and will allow our justice system to determine an appropriate course of action."

The function was located in Fairfield and Reagan was stopped at Youngsdale Drive at Nut Tree Road, just three blocks from his Vacaville home.

Reagan went on to say that he commends the police department "for handling this situation with professionalism and integrity," and that he hopes his situation "serves as a cautionary tale during this holiday season."

He was booked for California DUI - driving under the influence and driving while at a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. His California DUI attorney has not issued a statement.

Gary Collins' DUI victim dies

California DUI lawyer news

The elderly man who was hit by a car driven by a drunk Gary Collins has died.

Collins was arrested after plowing into a car driven by 89-year-old Warren Gates in October. Gates had been hospitalized since the accident, and sadly died 8:00 PM Friday.

Collins pleaded no contest last Thursday to California DUI charges and was sentenced to 96 hours in jail.

No word yet on whether Collins will be hit with additional charges. Collins was, however, found not to be at fault for causing the accident. Collins' California drunk driving criminal defense lawyer: "We are saddened to hear that the gentleman has passed away. This was an unfortunate accident. We are pleased that the police found that Mr. Collins was not at fault. We send our condolences to the family."

His California DUI attorney has not given a statement.

"Low Cost Insurance for DUI Offenders & Teenagers"

San Diego California DUI lawyer news

"Cheap Auto Insurance for Teenagers and SR22 Insurance for DUI Offenders"

Teenage Drivers and DUI offenders now have options to keep the cost of auto insurance low. Online quote rating in 47 States using 16 different insurance companies is now available from one insurance agency.

December 10, 2007 -- Cheap Teenager Auto Insurance



That actually sounds like an oxymoron to most people. As soon as teenagers begin wanting to drive a car, parents begin dreading the cost of teenage driver auto insurance. When teens begin researching acquiring his or her own car, the problem of costly teenager insurance coverage becomes even more problematic.

Teenage Drivers and DUI offenders now have options to keep the cost of auto insurance low. Online quote rating in 47 States using 16 different insurance companies is now available from one insurance agency.

Before allowing your teen age son or daughter to drive they must be of the proper age within your state, they must obtain a license or learning permit / driving permit and they must be properly trained. In the Greater Phoenix Metro Area, parents have an exciting new opportunity to help get their teenage drivers off to a good start. Driving MBA, a company headquartered in Scottsdale Arizona, provides simulator based driver training for teenagers and adults at their facilities in Scottsdale and their brand new training facility in Chandler Arizona.

Once your teen has a license or permit and the proper training the next thing that you must think about is car insurance. One of the first and most important considerations is the cost of the monthly premiums or annual insurance premium. Most insurers see teen driving group as an ultra high risk category and they charge ultra high risk premiums. This is because these companies see most teen drivers as being more reckless driving and accident-prone than adults. As a result, they charge higher premiums for auto insurance for teenagers.

Fortunately, there are ways in which you can lessen the charges for your teenager's car insurance. These same factors might help you get a better deal on your own auto insurance in the future as well.

1. Encourage your teen to maintain a spotless driving record. It is essential that you emphasize the importance of observing traffic laws. A clean driving record for your teenager can be critical to obtaining low cost auto insurance. Encourage them to avoid speeding tickets and other such traffic violations at all costs. Being aware of their surroundings and avoiding distracted driving can minimize the incidence of accidents happening. A clean driving record will be awarded with lower premium payments.

2. Look for auto insurance with a higher deductible. The premium payment is usually less for auto insurance that carries a higher deductible. The higher the deductible, the cheaper the auto insurance rates can be.

3. The more safety features the car has, the less likely it is to fall into a higher hazard rating class. If your teen's car has a lot of advanced safety features you may avoid vehicles require a premium for being in the higher hazard ranking class.

4. Follow any license restrictions listed on the license or permit. First time drivers may be restricted to driving with a licensed passenger, may only be allowed to drive at night or may have other restrictions, depending on the state and local regulations. Teenage drivers need to stick to the restrictions and guidelines that are specified on their licenses.

5. Get a teen only stand-alone policy. With this kind of policy, your child will be responsible for his own insurance.

As a parent, you should attempt to communicate the value of responsibility to your teenager. Make them accountable for what happens to their car and perhaps encourage them to work part-time to can pay for one-half of their premium.

After your teen is licensed and trained and you begin the hunt for cheap auto insurance, your best bet will be to contact an insurance agency with many years of experience and one that shops the rates from many different insurance companies to find your teenager and you the best low rate auto insurance coverage at the most affordable price.

Call 1-800-774-0520 right now or visit Serenity Group Cheap Auto Insurance online to fill out the quick quote form.

By visiting the web site, you can also chat with an agent online or have an agent call you.

About Serenity Insurance Group
Serenity Insurance began as a unique insurance agency primarily focused on serving the specialized insurance needs for drivers with alcohol related offenses. Mr. Thomas A. Black, the founder and CEO of Serenity Insurance has over 30 years experience in the insurance business. Mr. Black believes that when people make a serious mistake and get an alcohol related offense they need an insurance agency that understands what is involved from society's point of view as well as from the offenders point of view. Serenity Insurance helps people get back on their feet by acting as a resource for answers related to SR-22 insurance and providing affordable insurance. Serenity now serves 47states and is committed to treating all people with dignity and respect while maintaining complete confidentiality.

Serenity works very closely with Alcohol Treatment Centers supporting their efforts to get offenders back on their feet as contributing members of society as quickly as possible. Serenity stands firmly committed to providing caring confidential service combined with affordable insurance for people requiring an SR-22 filing.

Bill Austin
AZhttp, Inc.
(480) 998-0246

California DUI Checkpoints for holidays - Drunk Driving attorney

CALIFORNIA dui defense lawyer news

California DUI Police Department will hold a California DUI sobriety checkpoint starting at 8 p.m. today.

The California DUI checkpoint will be held at an undisclosed location within the city, said Rex Osborn, a Manteca California DUI Police spokesman. It will run until 3 a.m. Sunday.

This is a California DUI zero tolerance enforcement action, which means if we stop you and you have been drinking, you go to jail.

This California DUI drunk driving checkpoint will be the start of a very aggressive DUI enforcement period covering the upcoming holidays, per a California DUI press release. We encourage our community to plan their holiday parties around designated drivers and safe transportation alternatives.

The checkpoint is part of a Office of Traffic Safety Grant designed to increase public awareness on the issues of drinking and driving and to identify and arrest those in violation of the law.

This holiday season, law enforcement agencies throughout San Joaquin County will be conducting special California DUI enforcement programs as part of the Office of Traffic Safety California DUI drunk driving enforcement campaign.

The Avoid the 10 California DUI project, which includes the 10 law enforcement agencies in the county, starts Dec. 14 and continues until Jan. 1.

California DUI defense attorneys stand by.

State Parole Official facing California DUI / California Drunk Driving charges

California DUI lawyer news

A high-ranking commissioner at the state parole board, which makes decisions about whether criminals should remain in prison, is on the job 11 days after he was arrested and charged with California DUI / drunk driving / DWI driving under the influence of alcohol at 2 a.m. in a state-owned vehicle.

Robert T. Rodriguez, 57, an associate chief deputy commissioner for the Central Valley, had a California DUI blood-alcohol content double the legal limit, police allege.

Riding as a passenger was the parole board's top official, chief executive John Monday, an appointee of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

After the California DUI incident became public, officials at the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said they were investigating both Rodriguez and Monday. Both men were to continue in their posts pending the outcome.

Oscar Hidalgo, a spokesman for the corrections department, said its investigators Thursday had obtained the police report of the Nov. 27 California DUI arrest and were still in a "fact-finding" phase.

The arrest occurred after the two men had conducted a program hours before with inmates at a women's prison in Chowchilla. Bill Sessa, another spokesman for the corrections agency, said they were stopped by police later while returning to their hotel from a restaurant. Monday did not believe his colleague was intoxicated, Sessa said.

But police said that at about 2 a.m., a patrol officer noticed that the car Rodriguez was driving was straddling the center dividing line of a two-lane road and crossing to the other side.

After the officer stopped the car, he smelled alcohol on Rodriguez and in the car, and administered a California DUI sobriety test, which Rodriguez failed. Rodriguez later took a California DUI blood test that showed his blood-alcohol content to be 0.16%, double the legal limit.

Monday, whose sobriety was not checked, took a taxi from the scene and left the car at the side of the road. The next day, after Rodriguez spent a night in jail, they returned to retrieve the vehicle.

Rodriguez, who earns about $100,000 a year so it's suspected he'll get a top California DUI defense lawyer.

1/10th of a year's salary for a premier California DUI criminal attorney seems little compared to the upside.

California DUI checkpoints for holidays as California DUI lawyers prepare

California DUI lawyer & criminal defense lawyers for California

Holiday California DUI crackdown set to begin

A 19-day law enforcement campaign against California DUI drivers in Ventura County starts Friday, Dec. 14, with all 14 of the county's lawenforcement agencies keeping their eyes peeled for California DUI suspects through freeway saturation, four sobriety and driver's license checkpoints and in-city California UI patrols.

Simi Valley's California DUI checkpoint is scheduled for Saturday, Dec. 29.

While all police agencies will emphasize California DUI enforcement with officers on regular beats, others have special plans extending beyond California DUI checkpoints. In Simi, overlapping shifts will add to DUI coverage, California DUI lawyers report.

Last winter's 'Avoid the 14' campaign netted 287 arrests for California drunk driving / DWI / driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. No California DUI related deaths were reported, a sign of the program's success, according to a California DUI lawyer.

The Avoid movement began in 1973 in Santa Clara County.

California DUI lawyers prepare to help those in need.

California DUI Celebrities' Attorneys

California DUI lawyer news: California celebrities & their California DUI attorneys

It's a simple enough message trumpeted in awareness campaigns and reinforced at California DUI sobriety checkpoints, particularly during the holiday season: don't drink and drive.

Yet without fail, stories of individuals stepping behind the wheel impaired continue to emerge in the headlines with their arrests for California DUI .

Kiefer Sutherland, the star of "24," joined the lengthy, dubious ranks of Hollywood celebs who have been nabbed for California DUI driving under the influence, including Mel Gibson, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Richie.

The actor reported straight to lockup Wednesday evening after a California judge handed him a 48-day jail sentence following his second California DUI drunk driving arrest in three years.

One day earlier, Newfoundland native Wayne Enos Stokes was sentenced to a 3 1/2-year prison term for his 18th impaired driving charge and handed a lifetime driving prohibition - a first for the province.

Impaired driving remains the leading criminal cause of death in the country, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada. More than 70,000 men, women and children are killed or seriously injured in impaired driving crashes in Canada each year.

Doug Beirness with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse recently co-authored "Driving After Drinking in Canada," a paper published in the recent edition of the Canadian Journal of Public Health based on findings from the Canadian Addiction Survey.

The survey of just under 14,000 people aged 15 and older found that just under 12 per cent of licensed drivers in Canada reported operating a vehicle within an hour of consuming two or more drinks - down from estimates in previous years, Beirness said.

However, of the people who reported driving after drinking, less than five per cent of licensed drivers accounted for 86 per cent of all drinking and driving trips that occur.

"That's pretty startling in itself because that shows us that there is really this small minority of people who engage in this behaviour repeatedly. They do this over and over again."

Andrew Murie, CEO of MADD Canada, says when it comes to the general public, this issue of impaired driving becomes one of resources.

"People drink and drive because they can, because their likelihood of getting caught is pretty small," he said. "We just don't have, one, the powers for police to rapidly screen and apprehend impaired drivers, like other countries, like Australia and Europe do, and if we had those resources available to our police it would make a fundamental difference."

Canada's illegal blood alcohol level is among the highest of western countries at .08, according to a 2000 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report. Sweden has the lowest illegal level at .02, while the majority of countries are at .05.

Research indicates in every country where they've lowered the permissible blood alcohol limit, whether it's for repeat offenders, general drivers or young people, impaired driving deaths and injuries fall significantly, said Robert Solomon, a law professor at the University of Western Ontario and national legal policy director for MADD Canada.

Solomon, who has conducted legal research and advocacy work on impaired driving for 25 years, said police don't have the powers they need to enforce federal driving laws and should be given broader authority to demand blood samples following crashes.

"Right now, the people who commit the most serious impaired driving offences are the least likely to be convicted of those serious offences," he said.

"These deaths don't have to happen. Alcohol-related traffic death doesn't fall like rain. I don't believe the Chicken Little theory of alcohol-related death," he added. "These deaths are the direct result of our policies and practices."

Under proposed legislation in the federal government's Tackling Violent Crime Act, police would have better tools to detect and investigate drug-and alcohol-impaired driving, and penalties for impaired driving would be increased.

The proposed legislation includes provisions to allow officers trained as drug recognition experts to conduct sobriety tests and draw samples of bodily fluids to determine whether a person is impaired by a drug or a combination of alcohol and a drug.

It would also make it an offence to refuse or fail to comply with police demands for the tests or samples.

Part of what makes the issue of impaired driving so difficult speaks to the persistence of the behaviour that leads to it - which is drinking itself, Beirness said.

"Even though the majority of the population has gotten the message that drinking and driving is not a good thing to do, there still remains a small minority of people that just simply haven't gotten it yet," he said.

"And part of that is as a result of the fact that their lives are so entangled with alcohol that it's such a big piece of their life that they simply cannot separate the alcohol from everything else they do - and that includes driving."

While there is a role for enforcement, providing rehabilitation is an equally important part of the puzzle, he said.

"When we get a person into the criminal justice system of sanctions we also need to think of rehabilitation, and at present, we're not really doing a very good job of that. The only way to keep these people from racking up eight, nine, 10 different impaired driving offences is to get them into alcohol treatment."

Here are some high-profile examples of celebrities busted for California DUI - drunk driving / driving under the influence:

Mel Gibson: Arguably the celebrity poster boy for drunk driving, Gibson first faced the charge in Toronto in 1984, when he allegedly offered a cocktail to the man whose car he smashed into. More famously, Gibson was charged in July 2006 in Los Angeles, and the anti-Semitic remarks he made during his arrest are thought to have seriously damaged his Hollywood career and reputation.

Paris Hilton: Hilton was arrested and charged with California DUI driving under the influence in September 2006, setting in motion a chain of events that ultimately resulted in the schadenfreude-licious moment in which the much-maligned hotel heiress was sentenced to jail - while shrieking for her mother - for driving with a suspended licence a few months later.

Nicole Richie: In December 2006, the daughter of Lionel Richie was arrested and changed with California DUI / drunk driving after driving the wrong way on a major L.A.-area highway. Richie, a onetime heroin addict, admitted to having smoked marijuana and taken Vicodin, a powerful painkiller, before getting behind the wheel. Her explanation that she took the narcotics-based Vicodin for menstrual cramps, however, was met with ridicule by celebrity-watchers.

Ray Liotta: On Feb. 18, Liotta was charged with California DUI / DWI in an L.A. neighbourhood after crashing his Cadillac Escalade into two parked cars less than a kilometre from his home. The actor pleaded no contest to the California DUI charge on Thursday.

Vivica Fox: On March 20, Fox was charged with California DUI - driving drunk, after allegedly speeding past a marked police car on a L.A. highway.

Lindsay Lohan: The "Mean Girls" wild child has faced the charge twice this year: in May, she lost control of her Mercedes-Benz and struck a curb. She was charged with California DUI - driving under the influence and cocaine possession. Two days later, she entered rehab, and yet just a couple of weeks following her release from L.A.'s Promises, she was drunk and back behind the wheel of a car again. On July 24, Lohan was charged once again with DUI and cocaine possession following a high-speed, pre-dawn chase through the streets of Santa Monica. She served a brief prison sentence for the charges.

Kiefer Sutherland: The man revered as television's fearless Jack Bauer was charged in September for the second time for California DUI driving under the influence after being pulled over in west L.A. and failing a California DUI sobriety test. The arrest followed a previous California DUI incident in 2004. The Canadian actor began serving a 48-day jail sentence this week in order to take advantage of the ongoing screenwriters' strike in Hollywood and the hiatus in shooting "24."

Gary Collins: The longtime television personality was charged with California DUI in October for slamming into another car in L.A. Police officers on the scene smelled alcohol on the 69-year-old Collins's breath and he failed a California DUI field sobriety test.

Ray Liotta gets wet reckless by California DUI defense lawyer

California movie star & drunk driving defense lawyer news

With the help of a smart DUI defense lawyer, this wiseguy decided to cut a deal.

Ray Liotta pleaded no contest to alcohol or drug-related reckless driving Wednesday stemming from his run-in with two parked cars earlier this year, and as a result a pending California DUI charge against him was dropped.

For the misdemeanor, the Goodfellas star was sentenced to three years' probation, ordered to complete a short alcohol education program and fined $300.

He has also agreed to pay restitution to the owners of the vehicles he hit on Feb. 17 near his home in Pacific Palisades, California. No injuries were reported.

A witness to the accident called 911, and police said at the time the Unlawful Entry villain, who had remained at the scene, was cooperative. He was taken into custody, booked on suspicion of a California DUI and released after posting $15,000 bail.

At the time, Liotta was found to be under the influence of prescription medication, which his attorney said the 52-year-old actor was taking for a sports-related injury. A mixture of treatments made him drowsy and was therefore responsible for his impaired driving, according to the California DUI criminal defense lawyer.

Liotta's hearing may have slipped under the radar because California DUI criminal defense attorney Blair Berk happened to be juggling high-profile court dates, her other client being with Kiefer Sutherland, who was sentenced to 48 days in jail for his September DUI arrest Wednesday afternoon and subsequently checked in to start serving the time.

Gary Collins does 96 hours in jail for California DUI

California DUI lawyer news

LOS ANGELES California

Dec. 6 2007

A Los Angeles judge Thursday sentenced Gary Collins to 96 hours in jail after the TV personality pleaded no contest to driving under the influence.

Collins was arrested in October after a car accident involving an 89-year-old motorist. The former "The New Hollywood Squares" host entered rehab shortly after the incident.

Other terms of Collins' sentence include four years of probation, a $500 fine and 100 hours of community service.

Collins also must pay restitution to the victims, enroll in an 18-month alcohol-education program and attend 26 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

The judge told Collins he could serve his sentence at any city jail, but his stay would be at his own expense.

Fatigue can be as harmful as DUI / Drunk Driving

California DUI criminal defense lawyer news

Like drunk driving: Fatigue can be as harmful

When one reads about an auto accident in which a car hits a tree or crosses the center line and collides with another vehicle, especially when the accident occurs in the early morning or early afternoon, his first thought is not that the driver was probably drunk, but rather that the driver probably fell asleep behind the wheel.

“Drowsy driving is more common — and deadly — than most people think,” said Dr. Kotch, a retired pulmonary physician and sleep specialist in Redding California, “and it is rarely listed as the cause of an accident. But there are circumstantial indicators,” he continued. “The weather is clear, a single car crosses over the center line or goes off the road and hits a tree or other object and there is no evidence of trying to stop — no skid marks to indicate braking. The hour of the accident is also a factor, based on circadian rhythms. There are several times in a 24-hour period where it is easier to fall asleep, but particularly between 2 and 4 p.m. and 1 and 5 a.m.

“A little investigation can generally confirm fatigue as the cause. A driver’s sleep habits during the prior few days can be assessed with a few questions to the driver’s friends and relatives — and employer. Did someone just come off a double shift? or Has the person been working a lot of hours? There have been lawsuits against employers, including restaurants and hospitals, whose employees have been involved in accidents after coming off a long shift.”


‘Grossly underreported’

The National Sleep Foundation first conducted a survey about drowsy driving in 1998; the results were “shocking,” said Dr. Kotch. “Sixty percent of adults admitted to driving while drowsy and 37% had fallen asleep at the wheel; subsequent surveys have had similar results and other surveys show that drowsy driving as an accident cause is grossly underreported.”

In the sleep foundation’s 2005 Sleep in America poll, the numbers remained the same, and of the 37% — 103 million people — who said they have actually fallen asleep behind the wheel, 13% said they have done so at least once a month. Four percent, some 11 million drivers, admit to having an accident or near accident because they dozed off or were too tired to drive. The National Sleep Foundation is still tabulating the results of the 2007 study, but this year launched its first Drowsy Driving Prevention week, Nov. 5-11, to try to educate the public about the dangers of drowsy driving, particularly going into the holiday season.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes a year are a direct result of driver fatigue, resulting in an estimated 1,550 deaths, 71,000 injuries and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. Most sleep and accident experts believe those numbers are very low since there is no test to determine sleepiness like there is for intoxication, and state reporting practices in this regard are inconsistent.


Same as being drunk

Dr. Kotch said, however, that studies have shown that a person who has not slept in 18 hours functions at the same level as some who has a blood alcohol content of 0.08, which is considered legally drunk. Those who have not slept in 24 hours are functioning at the same level as someone with a blood alcohol level of 0.1. “And the combination of insufficient sleep and alcohol is especially deadly,” he added. “To bring the accident numbers down, there has to be the sentiment on the part of the public that something is wrong, that drowsy drivers are putting themselves and others at risk, much like what has been done with drunk driving.”

What can individuals do to prevent drowsy driving? “When tired,” said Dr. Kotch, “nothing really helps other than sleep. Caffeine does work, but only for about 30 minutes, so if you are close to your destination, it is worth stopping for. People will open windows, or turn their music up real loud, but that isn’t effective for more than a few minutes. Ideally, drivers who feel fatigued should pull off the road and take a nap. Of course, it is a problem to find a safe place to stop and sleep when you are traveling.”

The most extensive cause of drowsy driving, said Dr. Kotch, is lifestyle. “We’re a 24/7 society; people lead crowded lives... so what do they sacrifice first? — sleep. People stay up late regularly or during special events, like the World Series.


Frequently young

“Drowsy drivers are frequently young, 16-26 years old,” Dr. Kotch said. “Teens need nine hours of sleep for optimum function, but few get it; high school kids today are lucky to get six hours of sleep. The circadian rhythms of adolescents and teens are set so they have an easier time falling asleep later in the evening, 11 p.m. to 1 a.m., and they don’t really wake up until 8 or 9 in the morning. Teachers will tell you that the first period classes are frequently full of sleepy kids. Some areas have pushed back the high school starting time with very good results — the whole state of Minnesota did it and found that the students are performing much better.

“There are also a number of diseases that interfere with proper sleep and you have to look for these,” said Dr. Kotch. “The most common is sleep apnea. Intermittent obstruction of the upper airways interferes with continuous sleep and causes the patient to stop breathing and wake up many times an hour, 40, 50, 60 — I’ve even seen some people who wake up 100 times an hour — and they never get into the deep sleep levels required for real rest. This increases blood pressure, and people with sleep apnea frequently have heart disease and hypertension. The level of sleep apnea, as well as other sleeping problems, can be determined by a sleep study conducted in a certified sleep center.”


The first

Dr. Kotch established the area’s first Sleep Disorders Center at Danbury Hospital in 1989, which at the time of its certification in 1995 was the only one in the state. He served as its director until he retired in 2004. He was affiliated with the hospital for 34 years as a pulmonary specialist, also serving as associate director of pulmonary medicine and medical director of pulmonary rehabilitation.

He established the hospital’s Pulmonary Rehab Center, which combines education about pulmonary disease with exercise, drugs and nutrition, in 1983, one of the first of its kind. Dr. Kotch’s interest in sleep disorders evolved out of helping patients achieve a better quality of life, which he calls his greatest professional satisfaction.

After retiring, he worked part time at the Sleep Disorders Center at Gaylord Hospital and two years ago affiliated with Bridgeport Hospital on a part-time basis, and currently teaches Bridgeport’s pulmonary fellows and attends their clinics; he recently retired from seeing patients. He also continues to deliver papers to pulmonary and sleep disorder professional groups in the United States and overseas.

Dr. Kotch observed that when sleep disorders first became an area of study, most practitioners were neurologists, psychologists and Ph.D.s. “Now more than half are pulmonary doctors looking at the connections between sleep disorders and heart and lung diseases, particularly COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), which is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States — it kills 120,000 annually — and is the only one of the top 10 killers that is increasing. Ninety percent of COPD cases, which is emphysema and chronic bronchitis, are related to smoking; 12 million Americans have been diagnosed with the disease, and studies indicate that the same number may have the disease and don’t know it.

“If you are having trouble sleeping, or feel tired all the time, see a doctor and find out what treatments can work for you. Not only will you feel better, but you will be less of a risk to yourself and others while driving,” Dr. Kotch said.

To learn more about sleep disorders and the fight against drowsy driving, see the National Sleep Foundation’s Web site at www.sleepfoundation.org.

Star Fox booked for California DUI

California DUI criminal defense lawyer information

December 6, 2007

LOS ANGELES California

Former Dancing With the Stars contestant Vivica A. Fox went into a San Fernando Valley police station Wednesday and was booked for investigation of California DUI aka California drunk driving.

Fox, 43, was ordered by a judge on Monday to turn herself in or face a warrant for her California DUI arrest.

At about 12:15 p.m., Fox went into a police station in Northridge, where she was fingerprinted and photographed for the California DUI.

Fox was stopped in the Valley on March 20 by California Highway Patrol officers who said her 2007 Cadillac Escalade was allegedly doing 80 mph and weaving on the Ventura Freeway.

During her arrest, the black actress accused one California DUI officer of being a "racist white cop," according to a CHP California DUI 202 report.

In September, Fox pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor counts of California DUI - driving under the influence and driving with a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit of .08.

If convicted, she could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine etc, for the California DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI charge.

24 Star to do 48 hours for California DUI

California DUI Lawyer news

LOS ANGELES California

December 6, 2007

Star Actor Kiefer Sutherland was sentenced Wednesday to 48 days in the Glendale, California city jail in connection with California DUI & drunk driving cases.

Sutherland, 40, was also ordered to spend five years on California DUI probation, complete an 18-month alcohol treatment program and six months of weekly therapy sessions, and pay a $510 fine.

Sutherland received 30 days in connection with a September arrest in West Los Angeles California for having a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 or above. The remaining 18 days involve a probation violation from a 2004 California DUI case.

In 2004, the actor who plays counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer on Fox TV’s “24” was sentenced to five years’ probation, 50 hours of community service and was ordered to complete a California DUI alcohol program for a prior California DUI arrest.

Jack's California DUI criminal defense lawyer did a fine job.

New Statutes in next couple years for California DUI

California DUI lawyer news - new statutes

SEC. 22. Section 42009 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
42009. (a) For an offense specified in subdivision (b), committed
by the driver of a vehicle within a highway construction or
maintenance area, during any time when traffic is regulated or
restricted through or around that area pursuant to Section 21367,
when the highway construction or maintenance is actually being
performed in the area by workers acting in their official capacity,
the fine, in a misdemeanor case, shall be double the amount otherwise
prescribed. In an infraction case, the fine shall be one category
higher than the penalty otherwise prescribed by the uniform traffic
penalty schedule established pursuant to Section 40310.
(b) A violation of any of the following provisions is an offense
that is subject to subdivision (a):
(1) Section 21367, relating to regulation of traffic at a
construction site.
(2) Article 3 (commencing with Section 21450) of Chapter 2 of
Division 11, relating to obedience to traffic devices.
(3) Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650) of Division 11,
relating to driving, overtaking, and passing.
(4) Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800) of Division 11,
relating to yielding the right-of-way.
(5) Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) of Division 11,
relating to turning and stopping and turn signals.
(6) Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348) of Division 11,
relating to speed limits.
(7) Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 22450) of Division 11,
relating to special traffic stops.
(8) Section 23103, relating to reckless driving.
(9) Section 23104 or 23105, relating to reckless driving that
results in bodily injury to another.
(10) Section 23109 or 23109.1, relating to speed contests.
(11) Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, or a violation of Section 23103,
as specified in Section 23103.5, relating to alcohol-related reckless
driving.
(12) Section 23153, relating to driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, that results in bodily injury to
another.
(13) Section 23220, relating to drinking while driving.
(14) Section 23221, relating to drinking in a motor vehicle while
on the highway.
(15) Section 23222, relating to driving while possessing an open
alcoholic beverage container.
(16) Section 23223, relating to being in a vehicle on the highway
while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(17) Section 23224, relating to being a driver or passenger under
the age of 21 possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(18) Section 23225, relating to being the owner or driver of a
vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(19) Section 23226, relating to being a passenger in a vehicle in
which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(c) This section applies only when construction or maintenance
work is actually being performed by workers, and there are work zone
traffic control devices, traffic controls or warning signs, or any
combination of those, to notify motorists and pedestrians of
construction or maintenance workers in the area.
SEC. 22.5. Section 42009 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
42009. (a) For an offense specified in subdivision (b), committed
by the driver of a vehicle within a highway construction or
maintenance area, during any time when traffic is regulated or
restricted through or around that area pursuant to Section 21367, or
when the highway construction or maintenance is actually being
performed in the area by workers acting in their official capacity,
the fine, in a misdemeanor case, shall be double the amount otherwise
prescribed. In an infraction case, the fine shall be one category
higher than the penalty otherwise prescribed by the uniform traffic
penalty schedule established pursuant to Section 40310.
(b) A violation of the following is an offense that is subject to
subdivision (a):
(1) Section 21367, relating to regulation of traffic at a
construction site.
(2) Article 3 (commencing with Section 21450) of Chapter 2 of
Division 11, relating to obedience to traffic devices.
(3) Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650) of Division 11,
relating to driving, overtaking, and passing.
(4) Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800) of Division 11,
relating to yielding the right-of-way.
(5) Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) of Division 11,
relating to turning and stopping and turn signals.
(6) Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348) of Division 11,
relating to speed limits.
(7) Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 22450) of Division 11,
relating to special traffic stops.
(8) Section 23103, relating to reckless driving.
(9) Section 23104 or 23105, relating to reckless driving which
results in bodily injury to another.
(10) Section 23109 or 23109.1, relating to speed contests.
(11) Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, or a violation of Section 23103,
as specified in Section 23103.5, relating to alcohol-related reckless
driving.
(12) Section 23153, relating to driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, which results in bodily injury to
another.
(13) Section 23154, relating to convicted drunk drivers operating
a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or
greater.
(14) Section 23220, relating to drinking while driving.
(15) Section 23221, relating to drinking in a motor vehicle while
on the highway.
(16) Section 23222, relating to driving while possessing an open
alcoholic beverage container.
(17) Section 23223, relating to being in a vehicle on the highway
while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(18) Section 23224, relating to being a driver or passenger under
the age of 21 possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(19) Section 23225, relating to being the owner or driver of a
vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(20) Section 23226, relating to being a passenger in a vehicle in
which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(c) This section applies only when construction or maintenance
work is actually being performed by workers, and there are work zone
traffic control devices, traffic controls or warning signs, or any
combination of those, to notify motorists and pedestrians of
construction or maintenance workers in the area.
SEC. 23. Section 42010 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
42010. (a) For any offense specified in subdivision (b) that is
committed by the driver of a vehicle within an area that has been
designated as a Safety Enhancement- Double Fine Zone pursuant to
Section 97 and following of the Streets and Highways Code, the fine,
in a misdemeanor case, shall be double the amount otherwise
prescribed, and, in an infraction case, the fine shall be one
category higher than the penalty otherwise prescribed by the uniform
traffic penalty schedule established pursuant to Section 40310.
(b) A violation of any of the following provisions is an offense
that is subject to subdivision (a):
(1) Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650) of Division 11,
relating to driving, overtaking, and passing.
(2) Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348) of Division 11,
relating to speed limits.
(3) Section 23103, relating to reckless driving.
(4) Section 23104 or 23105, relating to reckless driving that
results in bodily injury to another.
(5) Section 23109 or 23109.1, relating to speed contests.
(6) Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, or a violation of Section 23103,
as specified in Section 23103.5, relating to alcohol-related reckless
driving.
(7) Section 23153, relating to driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, which results in bodily injury to
another.
(8) Section 23220, relating to drinking while driving.
(9) Section 23221, relating to drinking in a motor vehicle while
on the highway.
(10) Section 23222, relating to driving while possessing an open
alcoholic beverage container.
(11) Section 23223, relating to being in a vehicle on the highway
while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(12) Section 23224, relating to being a driver or passenger under
21 years of age possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(13) Section 23225, relating to being the owner or driver of a
vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(14) Section 23226, relating to being a passenger in a vehicle in
which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(c) This section applies only when traffic controls or warning
signs have been placed pursuant to Section 97 or 97.1 of the Streets
and Highways Code.
(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the enhanced
fine imposed pursuant to this section shall be based only on the base
fine imposed for the underlying offense and shall not include any
other enhancements imposed pursuant to law.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any additional
penalty, forfeiture, or assessment imposed by any other statute shall
be based on the amount of the base fine before enhancement or
doubling and shall not be based on the amount of the enhanced fine
imposed pursuant to this section.
SEC. 23.5. Section 42010 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
42010. (a) For an offense specified in subdivision (b) that is
committed by the driver of a vehicle within an area that has been
designated as a Safety Enhancement- Double Fine Zone pursuant to
Section 97 and following of the Streets and Highways Code, the fine,
in a misdemeanor case, shall be double the amount otherwise
prescribed, and, in an infraction case, the fine shall be one
category higher than the penalty otherwise prescribed by the uniform
traffic penalty schedule established pursuant to Section 40310.
(b) A violation of the following is an offense that is subject to
subdivision (a):
(1) Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650) of Division 11,
relating to driving, overtaking, and passing.
(2) Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348) of Division 11,
relating to speed limits.
(3) Section 23103, relating to reckless driving.
(4) Section 23104 or 23105, relating to reckless driving that
results in bodily injury to another.
(5) Section 23109 or 23109.1, relating to speed contests.
(6) Section 23152, relating to driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, or a violation of Section 23103,
as specified in Section 23103.5, relating to alcohol-related reckless
driving.
(7) Section 23153, relating to driving under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, which results in bodily injury to
another.
(8) Section 23154, relating to convicted drunk drivers operating a
motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or
greater.
(9) Section 23220, relating to drinking while driving.
(10) Section 23221, relating to drinking in a motor vehicle while
on the highway.
(11) Section 23222, relating to driving while possessing an open
alcoholic beverage container.
(12) Section 23223, relating to being in a vehicle on the highway
while possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(13) Section 23224, relating to being a driver or passenger under
21 years of age possessing an open alcoholic beverage container.
(14) Section 23225, relating to being the owner or driver of a
vehicle in which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(15) Section 23226, relating to being a passenger in a vehicle in
which there is an open alcoholic beverage container.
(c) This section applies only when traffic controls or warning
signs have been placed pursuant to Section 97 or 97.1 of the Streets
and Highways Code.
(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the enhanced
fine imposed pursuant to this section shall be based only on the base
fine imposed for the underlying offense and shall not include any
other enhancements imposed pursuant to law.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any additional
penalty, forfeiture, or assessment imposed by any other statute shall
be based on the amount of the base fine before enhancement or
doubling and shall not be based on the amount of the enhanced fine
imposed pursuant to this section.

Felony DUI 95 mph + evasion in California

California DUI lawyer news

A California man suspected of leading the California Highway Patrol on a high-speed chase Monday night that ended when he violently smashed into a van in Concord may have been California DUI - driving under the influence.

Richard Terrell, 38, of Antioch will be arrested on suspicion of felony California DUI - drunk driving and felony evasion after he is treated at a local hospital for injuries suffered in the crash.

According to CHP reports, about 9:30 p.m. an officer saw a Dodge Avenger speeding erratically on westbound Highway 4 near Bay Point. The officer began to pursue the car but lost sight of it, partly because it was traveling at more than 95 mph.

Witnesses said that the Avenger initially traveled past the southbound Highway 242 split but swerved sharply right and down a dirt embankment.

A pursuing officer discovered the dirt tracks and went down the same path, regaining sight of the Avenger on southbound Highway 242. CHP reports indicate that the car, now with a flat tire, accelerated and exited on the Solano Way/Grant Street offramp.

The Avenger ran a red light and broadsided the passenger side of a Ford Econoline van at a speed described by the CHP, Concord police and witnesses as 85 to 100 mph. The impact knocked the van 25 feet and overturned it.

All three Antioch men in the van had head cuts.Terrell had a compound ankle fracture. All four men were taken to John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek.

A California DUI attorney will have his hands full here.

DMV insider videos - how to pass test & common mistakes

California criminal defense & DMV lawyers info

Insider videos on how to pass the California driver's test

The 10 most common ways people mess up

California Department of Motor Vehicles officials posted these videos:

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/543944.html

http://www.youtube.com/californiadmv

The agency is trying to connect with the next generation of drivers as part of a do-over: an effort to erase its old image as the fusty bureaucracy with mind-numbing waits in field offices.

DMV's Internet offerings weren't winning any viewership battles this week against more typical YouTube fare – "Very Funny Dogs, Part 1" or "How to Beat Your Boyfriend" (at video games).

But DMV officials boast that – as far as they know – they are the nation's only state motor vehicle agency reaching and teaching via YouTube.

The site is www.youtube.com/californiadmv.

Educational videos – 55 of them – touch a variety of topics for drivers of all ages, from how not to get hit by a light-rail train to maintaining control of your car if you get a flat tire.

Most, however, are aimed at prepping beginners for the behind-the-wheel driving test. Agency officials say they hope to reduce the state's 50 percent failure rate for first-time test takers.

A smattering of posted comments indicates viewers take the videos seriously.

"I take my test today! Thanks for posting these!" reads a message from 19-year-old "trooperstormy" on a video about the second most common driving test mistake – failing to yield to a vehicle that has the right of way.

Unsafe lane changes are the top reason people fail.

"Good video!" another writes.

State officials said they were seeking better ways to prepare drivers for the road.

"We asked ourselves, where are young people getting information these days?" the DMV spokesman Mike Marando said.

The answer came to Marando as he watched his teen daughter's nightly Internet peregrinations on her laptop computer.

"They are on YouTube and MySpace," he said. "People learn more visually today. They are more, 'Don't tell me. Show me.'"

The DMV's timing is right, population data show. The state is experiencing a historic teen population boom, peaking this year at more than 600,000 16-year-olds, and putting more of the riskiest drivers on the road.

DMV also recently launched its own myspace.com site where Director George Valverde answers consumer questions. The site is clunky, agency officials admit, and will be revamped. As of Tuesday, the DMV was not a high social flier – it had just 58 "friends."

The YouTube site is more popular.

The most-viewed video – 17,000 hits in four months – is a three-minute segment about people who show up for the driving test without enough practice.

It mixes video clips of young drivers behind the wheel, computer-generated street action, and interviews with DMV driving-test examiners.

The examiners talk about first-timers who panic or even freeze behind the wheel.

When one novice driver in Visalia stopped inside the marker at the train tracks, a DMV examiner recalls telling the driver: "We're going to be hit, quite frankly. We need to get out" of here.

DMV's second most popular video, a two-minute piece on sharing the road with motorcycles, has 10,000 hits. It includes a scary little simulation of a car hitting a motorcycle, sending the motorcyclist bouncing over the sidewalk and onto some grass.

Earlier this year, the DMV grouped a number of its services – including vehicle registrations – on a new online homepage with a goal of reducing waits, workload and anxiety at field offices.

"It's a natural evolution," DMV's Marando said. "We're taking advantage of technology to reach our customers."

Officials said the technological migration has yielded results: DMV field office wait times have dropped. Four years ago, 63 percent of people had to wait more than 20 minutes in field offices – and some waits stretched to two hours. Now, only 31 percent of people must wait more than 20 minutes, officials said.

DMV officials said they are pleased with the response to their videos, and hope to publicize their project more.

They get a surprised thumbs-up from Nick Hughes, 17, of Lincoln, who generally watches music videos on YouTube. He recently checked the DMV videos out because a family friend, who works for the DMV, told his parents about it.

Hughes said it wasn't as boring as he expected, so he watched another and then another. The crashing motorcyclist was even kind of funny landing on the grass, he said.

"I get bored out of my mind reading the (driver's handbook,)" Hughes said. "The videos are actually kind of entertaining. I think they were pretty smart to do it."

New Drunk Driving violation is for .01 California probationers

California DUI attorney news - new drunk driving legislation for lawyers in California

New 0.01 violation in California Vehicle Code section 23154, effective January 1, 2009.


SEC. 5. Section 23154 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
23154. (a) It is unlawful for a person who is on probation for a
violation of Section 23152 or 23153 to operate a motor vehicle at any
time with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater,
as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical
test.
(b) A person may be found to be in violation of subdivision (a) if
the person was, at the time of driving, on probation for a violation
of Section 23152 or 23153, and the trier of fact finds that the
person had consumed an alcoholic beverage and was driving a vehicle
with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as
measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical
test.
(c) (1) A person who is on probation for a violation of Section
23152 or 23153 who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his
or her consent to a preliminary alcohol screening test or other
chemical test for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol
in the person, if lawfully detained for an alleged violation of
subdivision (a).
(2) The testing shall be incidental to a lawful detention and
administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable
cause to believe the person is driving a motor vehicle in violation
of subdivision (a).
(3) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to,
or the failure to complete, a preliminary alcohol screening test or
other chemical test as requested will result in the suspension or
revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a
period of one year to three years, as provided in Section 13353.1.


California DUI attorneys have several comments regarding this legislation.

What is the effect on a California DUI probationer?

It is already a mandatory condition of probation that a California DUI probationer not drive with a measurable amount of alcohol in his or her system, CVC 23600(b)(2), and driving with a .04 or higher BAC is supposed to be a mandatory probation revocation if it gets reported. CVC 23600(d).

Under this new law, California DUI probationers will be subject to a zero-tolerance law coming into effect 1/1/09 that can trigger an California DMV APS suspension and a possible probation violation.

The new law will not retroactively change the probation conditions. The new law will simply expose California DUI probationers to enhanced penalties if they commit a new offense.

The new law will compel California DUI probationers to submit to hand-held PAS gadget test if there is probable ause to believe they have been driving in violation of the zero-tolerance law applicable to California DUI probationers.

California DUI defense attorneys already forward information to California DUI probationers to not drive with any alcohol in their system.

DMV Director Dies - tought against California DUI drivers

California DUI lawyer news

Robert I. McCarthy, whose aggressive campaign against California DUI - drunk driving led to his resignation as director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles during the Pat Brown administration, has died. He was 86.

A former legislator, McCarthy represented the San Francisco area for 10 years in the Assembly and Senate before an unsuccessful run for state attorney general in 1958. Defeated by Stanley Mosk, who went on to become the longest-serving associate justice on the California Supreme Court, McCarthy was named director of the Department of Motor Vehicles by then-Gov. Brown.

In naming McCarthy to head the department in 1958, Brown said he wanted the 37-year-old San Francisco Democrat to institute a "get-tough policy" to improve highway safety and attack California DUI drivers.

McCarthy took the governor at his word. Under his leadership, the department began instituting suspensions for a number of driving offenses, including California DUI & one-year suspensions for drivers who caused fatal accidents.

In 1959, he announced that the DMV would suspend the licenses of convicted California DUI - drunk drivers for up to six months on a first offense. The new policy was lenient compared with some other states', where licenses were confiscated from first-time California DUI / drunk-driving offenders for as long as two years.

When traffic fatalities fell 10% statewide in the first seven months of California's crackdown, McCarthy concluded that the new policy was saving lives.

The policy was challenged in court by a Long Beach man whose license had been suspended for several months despite a trial court's recommendation that he be allowed to keep it and only pay a fine.

The case wound up in the state Supreme Court, which ruled on June 3, 1960, that the DMV suspensions were legal. By then, an estimated 32,000 licenses had been suspended under the policy promoted by McCarthy.

The crackdown became politically unpopular, however, after it netted a number of prominent and politically connected individuals, Elizabeth McCarthy said.

Brown, who initially had voiced strong support for the automatic suspensions, changed course in 1961 when he signed into law a measure that allowed the DMV to suspend licenses only if ordered by a court.

Scott Weiland denies being California DUI!

California DUI lawyer news

Velvet Revolver singer Scott Weiland, 40, was arrested for a California DUI Nov. 21 after crashing his car on an L.A. highway and reportedly failing a California drunk driving sobriety test.

But a rep for the former Stone Temple Pilots singer, who has recently battled drug and alcohol addiction: "Scott Weiland was recently involved in a minor accident in Los Angeles and denies he was (California DUI - )driving under the influence. He voluntarily took a Breathalyzer test which the defense believes registers well within the legal limit. He is anxious to get to court on December 13 and clear
this matter up."

His California DUI criminal defense attorneys are assembling.

California DUI - Drunk Driving attorney information

California DUI lawyer citizen inquiry

100,000 Americans died in DUI, drunk driving or alcohol-related crashes.

California DUI - Drunk Driving crashes have become almost an accepted part of our world. Inexplicably, too many people are killed by California DUI - drunk drivers to elicit a sustained public outcry.

Of course, the key here is that California DUI - drunk driving -- arguably the greatest daily threat an entire family faces -- is preventable.

"It's absolutely senseless," Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden said. "That's more than 46 people a day in this country, which is an astounding number. If we were killing 17,000 people a year with assault rifles, that would certainly get people's attention. But drunken driving doesn't create the social outcry. Because it's common, I think it becomes less noticeable. And that's hard to understand as you go and see the sorrow that flows to these families."

Anyone in a vehicle runs the risk of being in a California DUI or alcohol-related crash, and the likelihood probably is higher than many would believe. Odds are 1 in 3 that someone in your family will be involved in an alcohol-related crash during your lifetime. As many as one in five people driving after midnight are under the influence of alcohol, according to estimates from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"That's what's so scary about it," said Tom Killian, a spokesman for the California Highway Patrol. "When you're traveling with your family on a county road doing 45 or 55 miles an hour, you're putting a lot of faith in that stranger coming the other way. What if that person has been drinking? You're about six to eight feet from a head-on collision, and in a split second that car has crossed the lane in front of you.

"I can't think of a bigger social problem, and I don't know what more we could do. Everyone knows the consequences and the devastation it causes. The message is out there. But still people make that choice, that conscious decision to drink and drive."

Make no mistake: California DUI is a social issue, not a law enforcement problem. Police are dependent on most people following most of the rules most of the time. When that doesn't happen, there is little the police can do. That can be seen locally, where California DUI arrests and alcohol-related crashes are on the rise.

During the first 10 months of this year, the CHP made 1,367 California DUI arrests throughout Stanislaus County, a 13 percent rise over the same period in 2006. Through August, CHP officers responded to 207 crashes with California DUI the primary collision factor, more than 8 percent higher than the same period in 2006.

Meanwhile, the Modesto Police Department, which has three officers dedicated solely to California DUI enforcement thanks to recent grants, is on pace to record a 19 percent gain in California DUI arrests this year, from 730 in 2006 to a projected 870 this year.

Still, no matter how many California Drunk Driving / DUI-focused officers hit the streets, the result has been the same: more California Drunk Driving / DUI arrests, not fewer people drinking and driving.

So, what is the solution? Is there one? Are we just doomed to live with this issue, hoping someone in our family isn't that one in three involved in a California DUI crash? Humor me here, but let's play the game, 'If I were in charge ...'

The solution envisioned by some would be simple, and costly. In addition to current penalties, those convicted of California Drunk Driving or DUI have the cars they were driving sold, with the proceeds going to fund more California DUI only officers and related programs. This would fairly punish rich and poor according to their means and remove the involved vehicles from the equation. Looking at Modesto alone, multiply 700 annual convictions by $10,000 per vehicle. That's $7 million toward enforcement, or 140 extra officers making $50,000 a year. Imagine that in every jurisdiction across the country.

Of course, there are reasons this wouldn't work. One is that many cars aren't owned by their drivers. But the point is that something more drastic is needed, because what we're doing now isn't working. Despite greater enforcement, larger fines and skyrocketing insurance rates, 17,000 people die every year in alcohol- related crashes. And everything that's been done in 15 years hasn't lowered that number.

MADD meeting in California focuses on DUI situations

California DUI attorney

While in a crosswalk near a park where she was celebrating her fourth birthday, Santinia Pasquini was run over by a car driven by a 17-year-old girl allegedly California DUI - under the influence of alcohol and marijuana.

The teen didn't even know she had run over Pasquini until she was stopped a short time later.

She had previous drunken driving offenses and was driving on a suspended license, yet never received any consequences for almost ending the young girl's life.

Pasquini, now 31 and fully recovered, is one reason Vallejo Police Officer Ron Braxton has made arresting California DUI or drunk drivers a priority.

Braxton took a break from his police duties Saturday to pour coffee, clear plates and wipe down tables at Scotty's Restaurant in Vallejo to raise money for the Shasta County chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Braxton, who joined the group after a dear friend, Shirley Lennon, was killed by a California DUI / drunken driver in 2005, wanted to raise awareness about the dangers of drinking and driving.

"It has been a great turnout today. If I have helped save one person from being killed by a drunk driver, this has all been worth it," Braxton said.

With the help of other officers and a few hard-working Explorers - high school students who volunteer with the department - Saturday's fundraiser at Scotty's brought in more than $2,700.

The money will go to fund the Shasta County MADD chapter, as well as help get the new Solano chapter started early next year.

Braxton hopes to get community volunteers to help get the Solano chapter started, and is relying on Carmen Lopez, Pasquini's mother and member of the Shasta MADD chapter, to advise him.

"There are a lot of victims and survivors here in Solano County that want to do their part," Lopez said. "It is important that law enforcement and MADD work together."

Vallejo Lt. Lori Lee said Braxton arrests more DUI drivers than anyone else on the force; he has made 57 arrests so far this year, and was responsible for about a fifth of all California DUI arrests in Vallejo in 2006.

"Ron is very passionate and has put in tons of personal time, off-duty, fighting drunk driving," Lee said.

California DUI arrests require a lot of paperwork and can be very time consuming for police officers, already stretched thin due to understaffing, Lee said.

Unfortunately, officers often don't have time to arrest DUI offenders because of higher priority events demanding their attention, Lee said.

"It's incredible how close to people's hearts this issue is," said Offc. John Ehman, who was helping Braxton at the fundraiser. "I have heard so many stories today of people whose lives have been affected by drunk drivers."

Ehman himself was hit by a California DUI - drunk driver while sitting in his patrol car on a freeway in 1997.

Brian Ehman, 17, and Julio Jolivette, 16, Vallejo police Explorers who volunteered as waiters at the fundraiser, said they feel it is important to get the word out about the dangers of California DUI - drunk driving to people their age.

"A lot of high school kids drink; there are parties every weekend," Ehman said. "It can be hard to say no in front of all your friends, but you have to be the bigger person."

Jolivette said he didn't mind giving up his Saturday morning to volunteer at the MADD fundraiser.

"I think this is an awesome cause. I'm happy to do whatever the city needs," Jolivette said.

Braxton spreads his message about California drunk driving in his personal life as well, not just while wearing the badge.

His pick-up truck's tailgate is adorned with portraits of Pasquini, Lennon, and 15-year-old Reynauld White, who was killed by a California drunk driver in Vallejo in 2005.

No California DUI criminal defense lawyer was there to present another side.

California DUI Holiday Checkpoint information

California DUI attorney - California DUI lawyer news for Checkpoints for Christmas

For California DUI law enforcement agencies, holidays are the perfect time to turn on the heat to stop soused drivers. Some California DUI enforcement efforts, such as the countywide "Avoid the Twelve" campaign, focus on holidays, when parties are plentiful and people are more likely to indulge in an extra drink.

Modesto has had three California DUI drunk driving-related deaths this year.

California DUI Checkpoints ensure that the DUI message is "out there," says the state Office of Traffic Safety. "The primary purpose is public awareness. We would rather save lives than arrest people."

Research has shown that highly publicized, highly visible and frequent California DUI sobriety checkpoints reduce impaired-driving fatal crashes by 18 percent to 24 percent, according to the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

This evidence hasn't stopped one group, the American Beverage Institute, from lobbying against checkpoints. California, the Institute claims, relies too heavily on California DUI checkpoint programs. Sarah Longwell, the beverage group's managing director, says resources spent on checkpoints would be better spent on roving patrols, known as saturation patrols, where officers in patrol cars flood an area to find California DUI or California drunk driving - intoxicated drivers.

"Checkpoints don't deter hardcore drunk drivers and repeat offenders, who are the vast ma- jority of drunk-driver-caused alcohol-related fatalities," she said. "Officers should hunt down drivers showing signs of intoxication, as opposed to all standing in one place waiting for the drunk driver to come to them."

Longwell is the first to admit that her agency represents restaurants, which benefit when customers have a glass of wine with dinner or a beer watching the game.

Local law enforcement officers strongly disagree that California DUI checkpoints are a waste of time, but many say saturation patrols do lead to more California DUI arrests and the need for more California DUI criminal defense attorneys.

"Both send out the message," said officer Mayolo Banuelos, spokesman for the California Highway Patrol. "But roving DUI efforts have more units. They make more stops. Roving is better."

State grants to local agencies specify how many California drunk driving checkpoints and saturation patrols agencies must hold. Modesto police must set up 18 California DUI checkpoints and 16 roving patrols from October to September.

"If we focused more on patrols, we would probably get more DUIs out of it," he said. "But you just can't measure the educational element. For a lot of people, it's their first chance to see a police officer up close."

California DUI Checkpoints let agencies, such as the CHP, hand out brochures about driving safety. Friends often call each other to warn about California DUI checkpoint locations. Daughtry's main complaint about checkpoints? They take too long.

From October 2006 through September, the Modesto police held 18 California DUI checkpoints and made 42 DUI arrests from the 11,939 vehicles that passed through them, according to Modesto police Sgt. Ed Steele. During the same time period, the agency had 17 saturation patrols and made 50 arrests; the agency doesn't track the number of vehicles patrols stop. That's about 2.3 arrests per night for California DUI checkpoints, compared with 2.9 arrests for roving patrols.

Unlike Modesto, Turlock's state-funded grant requires police to hold twice as many patrols as California DUI checkpoints.

From January to September, Turlock's California DUI checkpoints netted nine California DUI drivers out of 1,753 vehicles. This year's roving patrol numbers were unavailable. But in 2006, Turlock had roughly 12 California DUI patrols, stopping 75 vehicles and resulting in eight California DUI arrests. Both efforts cost about the same per night. Per car, that's a 16 percent arrest rate for roving, as compared with a half percent for California Drunk Driving checkpoints.

The California DUI police probably get more DUIs from roving patrols. But the California DUI checkpoints are very effective and useful from a PR standpoint.

California DUI lawyers are in for a challenging holiday.

Real California DUI Trials go to high schools

California DUI attorney news

Real California DUI trials to return to schools

Nevada County Superior Court was awarded a $10,000 grant to bring Real DUI Court into local California high schools, Court Executive Officers announced Friday.

Funding from the California Office of Traffic Safety will bring the real trials of people charged with California DUI / California drunk driving - California driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to students in the county's three main high schools.

"It is our desire to bring real DUI trials to Bear River, Nevada Union and Truckee high schools," Judge Robert Tamietti said in a court-issued news release. "I had the privilege of presiding over a real DUI trial at Nevada Union High School last year, coordinated by the Grass Valley Police Department through a grant they had received. It gives students the opportunity to see real court proceedings and consequences as a result of drinking and driving."

Grass Valley police were glad to hear Friday that funding for the Real DUI program will continue.

"I am pleased to hear the Real DUI Court in the Schools Project will be returning," Grass Valley Police Sgt. Scott Telles said. "I feel the program was very beneficial to the students who participated last year."

Nevada County Superior Court will coordinate with the high schools to hold California DUI court proceedings sometime in the spring, Metroka said. Parents will be "welcomed and encouraged" to attend and observe the California DUI Trials.

DUI checkpoint announced for California town of Manteca tonight

California DUI attorney - drunk driving lawyer checkpoint bulletin:

The Manteca California Police Department will be conducting a California DUI - Driving Under the Influence checkpoint from 8 p.m. to 3 a.m. tonight.

The California drunk driving checkpoint will be held at an undisclosed location within the city limits.

"This is a zero tolerance enforcement action, which means if we stop you and you have been drinking, you go to jail," say the DUI police in this California town.

"This DUI checkpoint will be the start of a very aggressive DUI enforcement period covering the upcoming holidays."

"We encourage our community to plan their holiday parties around designnated drivers and safe transportation alternatives."

The California DWI / DUI checkpoint is part of a Office of Traffic Safety Grant designed to increase public awareness on the issues of drinking and driving and to identify and arrest those in violation of the law. California DUI attorneys stand by.

DUI Police have a thing about protocol

DUI attorney in California information - Impresssions from a DUI / Drunk Driving Officer's Perspective

Keeping your DUI protocol in check

Americans generally have zero tolerance for drunk drivers. M.A.D.D., S.A.D.D., your neighbor — nobody wants DUI - drunk drivers on the road. Stringent DUI laws are in place to ensure this.

A police officer has to go pretty far out of your way to bungle a DUI case — yet it happens far too often.

Earlier this week it emerged that Cook County, Ill., prosecutors dropped more than 50drunk-driving cases — with a potential of 500 more — when it was determined that the officer had failed to follow protocol.

According to the report, the officer, who’d been previously lauded for his many DUI convictions, failed to do three legally-required things:

Keep the suspect under 20 minutes of continuous observation
Give him a field sobriety test
Warn him of the consequences of refusing to take a Breathalyzer test
It's vital you keep these three points in mind, or else you'll run the risk of blowing your DUI case, like this officer did.

Observation

Arbitrary as it may seem, this law is in place for a reason.

According to law enforcement legal expert Ken Wallentine, the requirement of observing the suspect/defendant in a DUI case for 15 or 20 minutes stems from a case addressing core requirements for admission of a chemical BA test.

Many — if not all — states follow what has become known as the Baker rule as the proper foundation necessary to establish the reliability of a blood alcohol level obtained from a breath test, according to Wallentine.

He said it consists of showing that:

The intoxilyzer machine had been properly checked by a trained technician, and that the machine was in proper working condition at the time of the test.
The test was administered correctly by a qualified operator.
A police officer observed the defendant during the 15 minutes immediately preceding the test to ensure that the defendant introduced nothing into his or her mouth during that time.
“There is always the concern that a defendant will chew on a breath mint strip or consume mouthwash or some other substance containing alcohol and that it will skew the BA test results," Wallentine said.

The Baker rule, he added, requires that an officer visibly inspect the defendant's mouth at the beginning of the 15 or 20-minute observation period.

“Because this is a foundational test, failure to observe the defendant generally invalidates the breath test and does not merely impact its weight," he said. "If the driving pattern and field sobriety tests are not strongly indicative of impaired driving, losing the admissibility of the breath test can be the death of a DUI —aka DWI — prosecution.”

Field sobriety tests

Field sobriety tests (FSTs) are the bread and butter of DUI convictions, and while it is possible to seal a case without conducting them, it’s rare and not recommended.

“Too many officers stop cars, smell alcohol and figure that the chemical detection test will prove that they’re drunk,” said Robert Willis, a law enforcement instructor at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College in Green Bay, WI.

Given this, it's understandable that one of the most common DUI pitfalls involves officers counting too heavily or exclusively on the results of a chemical detection test that might or might not pan out.

“If your Breathalyzer [result] is thrown out and you have very little probable cause in your report and little or no documentation of your initial observations of their driving, you’re not going to get a drunk-driving conviction," Willis said.

In a legal setting, the results of these chemical tests can be easily suppressed if there's no probable cause for stopping the vehicle in the first place.

Furthermore, chemical tests are not fail-proof. Alcohol tends to evaporate and/or absorb quickly from a person’s tongue, and again their reliability can be skewed by external factors like breath mints.

“The crux of a DUI prosecution is that a defendant is impaired to the degree that he or she cannot safely operate a vehicle,” Wallentine said. “The FSTs are very often the best evidence of this.”

The gold standard

According to Willis, the three FST gold standard tests for DUI suspects are:

Eye tracking: The horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which Willis calls “marbles on ice.” Instruct the subject to follow a light source side-to-side. A drunk person’s pupils will start to bounce as they track from side-to-side.
One-leg stand: The suspect has to balance on one foot of their choice.
Straight line walking test: Give them instructions to do a heel-toe walk (walk and turn); count their steps as they walk, make a turn, and count their steps as they walk back.


Former DUI task force instructor Sgt. Ken Keating, of the Naperville (Ill.) PD, said, if given properly, with the correct instruction, these standardized tests are the tried and true triumvirate that will hold up in court.

“If you give someone these three tests and they fail each one,” he said, “you’re probably looking at 99 percent likelihood that this person is impaired by a substance.”

However, it’s important to note that there can be variables that can skew results, for example, obesity, someone with a hip problem, or someone with legitimate balance issues.

"The most important thing in administering field sobriety tests is consistency,” Keating said. “If you are consistent in the way you deliver your instructions, the likelihood you’ll have problems is greatly diminished.”

When Keating worked in Florida, his department used pre-printed instructions on how to give the tests, which helped to give credence and authority to the accounts of officers in the courtroom.

“We read them word for word every time, to the point I had them memorized," he said. “There’s no room for error. It gives great credibility on the stand. When a defense attorney asks you, ‘How did you tell my client to do the one leg stand?’ you can recite the account verbatim, with confidence and strength.”

Failure to warn of the consequences of refusing a chemical test

Most states work within the legal framework of “implied consent.” It means every driver has been granted the privilege to drive with the understanding that, under probable-cause suspicion, an individual would submit to a chemical test to determine blood alcohol or other substance content.

This point only becomes an issue if the person refuses the test.

“In most states, it’s the officer’s legal responsibility to tell them the consequences of refusing the Breathlyzer, which usually are license revocation and a steep fine,” said Willis. The penalty for refusal, he added, can be just as bad — or worse — than a conviction for drunk driving.

Wallentine said that the failure to warn of the consequences of refusing a chemical test should not impact the underlying prosecution. However, it can be fatal to the administrative revocation or suspension of a driver license

"It is also — to be blunt — an inexcusable, sloppy error by the officer," Wallentine said. "Almost every state has a pre-printed form that must be read to the defendant. It takes only a few minutes and involves nothing more than following a well-established and sensible rule.”

End game

Impaired drivers on our roadways are a serious business, and need to be taken seriously by police.

It bears repeating that DUIs are a crime investigation, and should be treated as such. This means writing complete reports, being consistent, sticking to standardized FSTs — resisting the urge to improvise — and not relying too heavily on the results of chemical detection tests.

Keeping this in mind means every citation can be a conviction.

Former California Sheriff arrested for DUI

California DUI lawyer news

Disgraced former San Joaquin sheriff arrested on suspicion of DUI / drunk driving in California.

A disgraced former San Joaquin County California Sheriff who spent six months in federal prison for his alleged role in a corruption case was arrested Thursday evening on felony California DUI - drunk driving charges.

Temple Baxter Dunn Jr., 60, of Manteca, was travelling between 65 and 70 mph in his Chrysler 300, when he made a lane change and was unable to slow down enough to avoid colliding with a truck driven by Jorge Albert Becerra, 33, of Ceres, California Highway Patrol officials said.

CHP Officer Adrian Quintero said calls of a traffic accident were reported shortly before 10:15 p.m. on westbound Highway 120 just east of the Union Road exit. Becerra complained of back and abdominal pains and was admitted to Doctor's Hospital in Manteca, CHP officials said.

Dunn, who was wearing his seat belt, wasn't injured, but his air bags deployed and there was major damage to his vehicle, Quintero said. When emergency crews arrived on the scene, both parties were out of their vehicles and on the side of the road.

Quintero said Dunn provided a California DUI breath sample, and although he can't release the results, he did say it was over California's legal limit for driving. He also failed other California DUI field sobriety tests before being arrested on felony charges of DUI - driving under the influence for injuring someone other than himself in the accident, Quintero said. "We don't show any favoritism,'' Quintero said. "A DUI is a DUI, no matter who they are or what their former position is. We're going to take appropriate action.''

Dunn was booked into San Joaquin County Jail -- where he served as the top elected cop in the county from 1990 through 2005 -- and has since been released after posting $50,000 bail.

Dunn spent six months in a federal prison in Taft after pleading guilty in federal court to mail fraud charges in exchange for his testimony against a former partner in a corruption case. Dunn had teamed with Monte McFall and N. Allen Sawyer -- the former executive director of the Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning -- to secretly form two companies, MSD Ventures Inc. (McFall-Sawyer-Dunn) and SMTM Partners (Show-Me-The-Money). Both companies represented Sunlaw Energy in its bid to build a power plant in exchange for a $2 million commission.

The trio conspired to extort Calpine Co. into dropping plans for a competing power plant at the Port of Stockton. McFall was convicted of nine counts of attempted extortion, six counts of mail fraud and two counts of witness tampering in 2005. He was sentenced last December to 10 years in prison.

Sawyer was sentenced to five years probation and confined to his home for six months. Former San Joaquin County Supervisor Lynn Bedford pleaded guilty to making false statements to federal agents in 2005 and was sentenced to five years probation.

Following his guilty plea, Dunn announced his retirement after 38 years with the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office and is currently collecting $12,000 a month in pension. The move prompted state lawmakers to pass what's been dubbed the "Baxter Dunn law,'' which bars elected officials convicted of felonies connected with their office from receiving the taxpayer-funded portion of their pension. His California DUI defense attorney will be handling this.

DUI checkpoint tonight in California - Claremont

California DUI attorney news

California Drunk Driving / DUI checkpoint tonight

CLAREMONT California

A California DUI sobriety and driver's-license checkpoint will take place at 6 tonight until 2 a.m. Sunday at an undisclosed location.

Motorists will be stopped long enough to make sure they are not driving drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, have a seatbelt on and have a valid driver's license, according to a Claremont DUI police news release.