Call Today for Your Free Consultation
415-729-7300
Call Today for Your Free Consultation
415-729-7300
Recent Blog Posts
How DUI Convictions Are Treated Across State Lines
The consequences of a conviction for driving under the influence can follow you across the U.S., despite the fact that the conviction originated in one state. California is one of 45 states that are members of the Driver License Compact – an agreement in which states are required to share information about convictions for traffic offenses and to enforce the punishments instituted by other states. If you are a California resident who was convicted of DUI in another state, California is obligated to enforce punishments such as a driver’s license suspension. The same obligation applies if you are a resident of another state in the DLC and are convicted of DUI in California.
California Rules
Though all members of the same compact, each state has its own laws regarding what qualifies as a DUI offense and what the punishment for a conviction will be. California will enforce other state’s DUI convictions as long as they comply with California’s own rules. California will not enforce another state’s DUI conviction if:
When Can Prosecutors Use Silence Against You in a DUI Case?
Silence has been the prevailing wisdom when stopped by a police officer on the suspicion of a crime such as driving under the influence. By not saying anything, you avoid potentially incriminating yourself with your words. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you the right to refrain from answering a question that may incriminate you, and the Miranda Rights that police must read after your arrest starts with “You have the right to remain silent.” Defense attorneys have long argued that silence cannot be portrayed as an admission of guilt during a case. However, a California Supreme Court ruling in 2014 determined that a defendant’s silence after a DUI stop could be used against him in court.
People v. Tom
In the case of People v. Tom, the defendant was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated after being involved in a fatal car collision. During the trial, the prosecution mentioned that the defendant had not asked the responding police officers about the condition of the occupants of the other vehicle before his arrest. The prosecutor argued that the defendant was silent because he either knew he was guilty of DUI or had a reckless disregard for the safety of others. The jury convicted the defendant, who appealed in part because he claimed his silence should not have been allowed as evidence of his guilt. The California Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution was within its right to present that evidence because:
California Considering Lowering BAC Limit to 0.05
California lawmakers are trying to follow Utah’s lead by becoming the second state in the U.S. to lower its blood alcohol concentration limit from 0.08 to 0.05. Utah enacted the change to its driving under the influence of alcohol law at the end of 2018. California wasted little time in proposing a bill that would make the same change. Even if this bill fails to pass through the assembly, lawmakers may continue to propose this legislation until enough of their colleagues join them. Proponents of lowering the BAC limit claim that it will discourage drunk driving and reduce the number of DUI fatalities. However, opponents argue that the change would punish more drivers while doing little to save lives. There are three points that support this argument:
- Low Level of Impairment: Statistics on drunk driving fatalities consistently show that the average BAC for drivers is around 0.15, which is almost double the current legal limit. There is no statistical evidence that proves that drivers whose BAC is between 0.05 and 0.08 are a significant cause of driving fatalities. Instead, scientific studies have concluded that drivers show greater signs of impairment when they are using hands-free phones than when they have a BAC of 0.05. Hands-free phone conversations are not only legal but considered more responsible than other forms of distracted driving.
New Legislation Would Increase Felonies, Impoundment for Repeat DUIs
The California State Legislature has proposed a law that would institute harsher penalties for people who have been convicted for driving under the influence multiple times within a 10-year period. The law would create a mandatory felony conviction for certain repeat offenders, instead of giving the courts the option of a misdemeanor conviction. The law would also extend the length of time that a convicted offender’s vehicle could be impounded. If the law passes, these penalties would make DUI defense even more critical for those being charged.
Felony Charges
Under the current law, four or more DUI convictions within 10 years can be a misdemeanor or felony offense. The proposed law states that:
Rules for Obtaining a Blood Sample After a DUI Arrest
The implied consent law in California gives a police officer permission to perform a blood alcohol test on you after you have been arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Refusing the test will result in an automatic suspension of your driver’s license and enhanced penalties if you are convicted. A police officer will offer you two ways to take the test: a breath sample or a blood sample. The officer cannot force you to give a blood sample without a warrant.
Opting for the Blood Test
A DUI attorney will advise you not to submit to any chemical tests, but many people fear the consequences of not complying. When given options, most people choose the breath test over the blood test because it is less invasive. There are situations in which the police will insist on a blood sample:
Ignition Interlock Becoming Mandatory in 2019
California will enact a statewide ignition interlock device program for all driving under the influence convictions starting at the beginning of 2019. The state has been running a pilot IID program since 2010 in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare counties. Courts in the rest of the state have issued IIDs as part of DUI sentencing on a case-by-case basis. The new law will make IIDs mandatory for most convictions. IIDs are costly and sometimes troublesome for users but may be preferable to having a restricted or suspended driver’s license.
What is an IID?
An ignition interlock device is an alcohol breath tester that is installed inside your vehicle. You are responsible for at least part of the cost of having the device installed and maintenance fees. With the device, you must provide an alcohol-free breath sample in order to start the vehicle and will be required to provide additional breath samples:
Testing the Credibility of Anonymous DUI Tips
The California Highway Patrol encourages civilians to report drivers that they suspect may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. For instance, police recently arrested a Petaluma man for suspicion of DUI based on a tip from a civilian who saw the man allegedly swerving all over the road before stopping at a restaurant to have an alcoholic drink. The tip gave police cause to question the man and conduct sobriety tests, which allegedly showed that the man had a blood alcohol concentration that was three times the legal limit. DUI defense attorneys debate prosecutors about when a civilian tip creates enough reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI stop.
Anonymous Tips
How Child Passengers Affect a DUI Case
Driving under the influence by itself has potentially serious penalties if you are convicted. Having a child with you in your vehicle at the time of your alleged DUI incident will aggravate the charge and the penalty. You are liable for the safety of any passengers, but prosecutors may charge you with child endangerment if they believe that you put a child at risk by driving impaired. Because it was likely your child in the vehicle, you have both your freedom and your parental rights at stake during your case.
DUI with Child
California law defines a child in a DUI case as someone who is younger than 14. The child passenger did not need to be in danger for prosecutors to charge you with DUI with a child. If the court rules that you were guilty of DUI, the child’s presence in the vehicle is enough to prove the aggravated DUI charge. A DUI with a child conviction includes mandatory jail time. How long you must stay in jail depends on whether you have any previous DUI convictions on your record. You would be sentenced to:
Officers Follow 12-Step Process to Identify DUI with Drugs
The driving under the influence of drugs evaluation process is increasingly important in California because of the recent legalization of recreational marijuana. Most California Highway Patrol officers have received training to identify signs of drug-related impairment, but fewer officers are certified to recognize which drug may be impairing the driver. Being accused of using an illegal drug may have different consequences than being accused of using marijuana. Many law enforcement organizations follow a 12-step drug recognition process that the International Association of Chiefs of Police endorses:
- Breath Alcohol Test: The arresting officer must first determine whether the suspect is under the influence of alcohol. The officer can request a drug recognition evaluation if the breath test is negative but the officer believes the suspect is impaired.
Four Reasons Why Field Sobriety Tests Are Unreliable Evidence
The name “field sobriety test” makes these exercises sound more official and clinical than they actually are. FSTs help police officers guess whether a driver may be impaired by using subjective exercises, such as the horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk-and-turn exercise, and one-leg stand. An experienced criminal defense attorney has many ways to refute the results of an FST if the prosecution tries to use them as evidence in a driving under the influence case. The defenses center around the many flaws with FSTs:
- FSTs Are Naturally Subjective: The accuracy of a test depends on a consistent application of the test and measurable results. Officers use FSTs as suggested exercises to help make judgments. They have discretion in the ways they administer FSTs and can draw different conclusions from the same results, depending on their experience and training. FSTs are not meant to provide empirical evidence of a person’s intoxication.
Questions? Let's Get Started.
