Superior Court Of California, County of Tuolumne

If you have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs in the state of California, it is important to know the location of the courthouse where your arraignment will be held. If there are multiple courthouses in the county, please contact a skilled California DUI / DWI defense attorney for more information.

Tuolumne County Superior Court
Historic Courthouse
41 West Yaney Street, Sonora, CA 95370

Branch Courthouse
60 North Washington Street, Sonora, CA 95370

» Tuolumne County Superior Court of California website.

Getting arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI can be a frightening experience. Suspected drunk drivers face a legal labyrinth that can seem daunting. A drunk driving case generates two separate cases – in criminal court, and at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A California attorney with experience defending drinking and driving cases can help drivers navigate through both the DMV hearing and the court case.

» Return to California Superior Courts, general information

Motion for Supplemental Discovery

The process of gaining access to the prosecution’s evidence, known as discovery, is a critical aspect of drunk driving defense. An experienced California DUI lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm will seek access to every piece of evidence that may help a motorist accused of driving under the influence fight the charges. This is accomplished by filing a pretrial motion for supplemental discovery.

Motion for supplemental discovery is based on the notion that the defendant is entitled to receive all the information that will be used by prosecutors in their attempt to convict. Discovery has many purposes in a court case – it is designed to promote truth, save the court’s time, and to prevent an ambush at trial.

Certain evidence is turned over to the defense without a motion for supplemental discovery. The evidence that is typically turned over to the defense without a motion might include the names and addresses of prosecution witnesses, any statements made by the defendant, relevant evidence seized or obtained as part of the investigation, exculpatory evidence, results of scientific tests, and any written or recorded statements of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at a prospective trial, including experts.

California DUI lawyers experienced in driving while intoxicated cases will use a request known as a Brady motion to seek any information held by the prosecution that may benefit the defendant. For an example, the California DUI lawyer might ask the prosecution to provide calibration and maintenance records for the breath testing machine used during the driver’s arrest. Additionally, a discovery motion may be made to obtain a portion of blood or urine samples – known as a "split" – in order to have the samples independently tested by a forensic toxicologist.

Other motions might include requests to the court to impose sanctions because the prosecution failed to preserve favorable evidence. This type of request is called a Trombetta / Youngblood motion. Another discovery request, known as a Pitchess motion, is designed to obtain the personnel records of the law enforcement officer involved in the arrest.

Discovery begins informally when both sides present a list of requested materials. If either side fails to comply with the informal discovery process, then opposing counsel can engage in formal discovery.

Formal discovery is overseen by the court. If either side fails to comply with formal discovery, the court can order sanctions and other penalties. Formal discovery is always preceded by informal discovery, except in the case of Pitchess motions.

A motion for supplemental discovery can be an effective tool in the hands of the right California DUI lawyers or attorneys. A California DUI Attorney with a proven track record of fighting and winning DUI / DWI cases can determine where supplemental discovery will advance the client’s drunk driving defense case.

Police investigating a DUI / DWI in California often have the driver take the Finger-to-Nose Test or another field sobriety test before making an arrest. Unfortunately, field sobriety tests shouldn’t be called tests at all, because they’re designed to be failed. They’re used only to establish probable cause to make an arrest and generate ammunition for a drunk driving court prosecution. The good news is that the results of field sobriety tests can be successfully challenged by a skilled attorney. An experienced DUI / DWI defense lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm can aggressively challenge the Finger-to-Nose Test and other drunk driving evidence to create reasonable doubt of the driver’s guilt.

The Finger-to-Nose Test is so unreliable an indicator of alcohol impairment that it’s not even standardized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Because the NHTSA does not endorse the Finger-to-Nose Test as a valid gauge of alcohol impairment, it holds less weight in court than a standardized test.

Police officers conduct the Finger-to-Nose Test by instructing the driver to touch his or her index finger to the nose with eyes closed and head tilted back. The driver is told to continue to touch the left or right index finger to the nose at random. While administering the test, the officer is watching for the following signs that the driver is intoxicated: An inability to follow instructions; poor depth perception; swaying, muscle tightening or tremors; or an inability to touch the finger directly to the tip of the nose. The officer also will make a note of any statements made by the driver during the test.

Clearly, drivers don’t take the Finger-to-Nose Test under the best of circumstances; it is usually given by the side of a busy freeway or street as cars whiz past. The driver is typically nervous after being ordered from his or her car. And the Finger-to-Nose Test has no objective scoring system – the outcome of this “test” is based entirely on the officer’s opinion. Some officers don’t even conduct the test properly.

There are many conditions unrelated to alcohol use that could cause a driver to perform poorly on the Finger-to-Nose Test. Injury, illness, motor-skill difficulties, or just plain nervousness could cause a driver to “fail” the test. However, police rarely take these issues into consideration when conducting the Finger-to-Nose exercise or other field sobriety tests.

In fact, police often fail to tell drivers that the Finger-to-Nose Test and other field sobriety tests are completely optional. Unlike chemical tests given after a motorist is arrested for drunk driving, field sobriety tests are totally voluntary. If given an option, obviously drivers arrested for DUI / DWI would decline to create evidence to be used against them in court, but police are usually less than forthright about the test being voluntary.

An attorney with experience defending driving under the influence cases will challenge the officer’s interpretation of the Finger-to-Nose Test and demonstrate that the results indicate the driver wasn’t impaired. A California defense lawyer skilled in fighting drunk driving cases can mount an aggressive defense and contest the results of any field sobriety test.

When conducting sobriety checkpoints, police must follow strict guidelines outlined by the California Supreme Court in the landmark case Ingersoll vs. Palmer. If police do not follow the criteria laid out in Ingersoll, the DUI / DWI roadblock isn’t lawful, and any evidence gathered during a drunk driving arrest may not be admissible in court. The skilled DUI / DWI defense lawyers from The Kavinoky Law Firm can determine whether a sobriety checkpoint was conducted lawfully.

In the Ingersoll decision, the Court outlined eight (8) requirements designed to minimize the intrusiveness on the individual and balance the needs of society to keep drunk drivers off the road.

According to Ingersoll, supervisory police officers, not officers in the field, must make decisions about the establishment and location of sobriety checkpoints. This is important to reduce the potential for arbitrary and random enforcement.

The Court’s decision also limited the discretion of police to stop drivers at checkpoints. Police should use a neutral mathematical formula, such as every third, fifth, or tenth driver, to determine which vehicles to stop. This requirement takes away the discretion of the individual officer to choose to stop drivers based on appearance.

Maintaining safety for motorists and officers must be a primary consideration. Proper lighting, warning signs and signals, and clearly identifiable official vehicles and personnel are required. The checkpoint should only be operated when the traffic volume allows the operation to be conducted safely.

A supervisory officer must choose a location that will be most effective in actually stopping drunk drivers, such as roads which have a high incidence of alcohol-related accidents and arrests.

The time and duration of DUI / DWI roadblocks also must be considered. Police must use good judgment in scheduling sobriety checkpoints, with an eye to effectiveness of the operation, and with the safety of motorists in mind. So long as these considerations are in effect, there are no specific rules about the timing or duration of the roadblock.

Sobriety checkpoints also must be highly visible so that drivers can easily see the nature of the roadblock. Flashing warning lights, adequate lighting, police vehicles, and the presence of uniformed officers all contribute to visibility. Not only are such factors important for safety reasons, but advance warning will reassure motorists that the stop is duly authorized.

Each driver should be stopped only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, alcohol on the breath, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver doesn’t show any signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe signs of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a field sobriety test. At that point, probable cause must propel any additional investigation, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.

The public should be informed in advance about sobriety checkpoints, although police are not required to disclose its specific location. Publicity both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect of the roadblock. Advance notice is intended to limit the intrusion upon the individual’s personal dignity and security because those stopped would anticipate and understand what was happening. Further, advance publicity serves to establish the legitimacy of roadblocks in the minds of motorists.

Drivers who take steps to avoid a roadblock cannot be stopped merely because they attempted to avoid the checkpoint. However, if the driver commits a vehicle code violation or displays obvious signs of intoxication, there is adequate probable cause to pull over the motorist, after which point general principles of detention and arrest apply.

The California Supreme Court’s Ingersoll decision gave police latitude in conducting sobriety checkpoints, but it also established guidelines under which the roadblocks must be operated. If police don’t follow that protocol, the evidence gathered as a result of the roadblock may be suppressed as a violation of the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights. A California DUI / DWI lawyer who is well-versed in the requirements of sobriety checkpoints can determine whether a roadblock was lawfully executed, and whether any evidence gathered is likely to be suppressed.

In California, driving under the influence of alcohol or driving while intoxicated is a crime that the law does not take lightly. While harsh penalties such as jail time, fines, and license suspensions are common sentences in such cases, the law in California does provide for alternative sentences. With the help of an experienced DUI / DWI lawyer, a driver may be able to get the benefit of alternative punishments that may be more suitable to the motorist’s particular drunk driving case.

One of the more common forms of community service is freeway cleanup. D.U.I. offenders who work in freeway cleanup do so by joining a Caltrans work crew as a condition of probation. Pursuant to a program known as good time/work time custody credits, hours spent working with Caltrans will be credited toward jail time a person would otherwise be serving. Each hour of cleanup will be equal to one hour of a jail sentence.

The Caltrans work day lasts eight hours and it involves picking up trash, clearing brush, and cleaning graffiti from walls along the freeways. The Caltrans work day usually begins at 6 a.m. in the parking lot of a Caltrans location, where workers board vans to travel to work sites. Caltrans work is available every day, although weekend slots are in high demand, so it’s important to arrive at the pickup site early to ensure a place in line. Failure to arrive on time may result in missing a whole day.

Freeway cleanup is generally offered as a condition of probation. The drunk driving offender is given a deadline to complete the required number of hours. If the hours are not completed on time, the offender will be in violation of probation and jail will become a serious possibility. Any DUI / DWI lawyer would warn a person to complete all programs and to not violate probation.

Caltrans is not always the most attractive alternative for a person who is convicted of driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated. However, for many people the option is better than time in jail. Caltrans can be done over time and will allow a person to live a pretty normal live in the meanwhile. Alternative sentences have been created to punish, but also provide a more productive activity than sitting in a jail cell. Oftentimes these alternative sentences help to clean up or improve a place, as well as allowing the offender to keep a job, an option that would not be available if jail was the only option.

Many California DUI / DWI attorneys recommend Caltrans work when it is available as an alternative sentence. It is not the only alternative sentence available. The court offers different options that should be considered in greater detail. Consult The Kavinoky Law Firm to find out if Caltrans freeway cleanup is an option for you.

Electronic monitoring

Marijuana related offenses, in California, typically carry severe penalties that include probation, heavy fines and jail or prison sentences. When the charged offense was a non-violent one, the accused has more options with respect to sentencing that may allow him or her to avoid incarceration. A savvy criminal defense lawyer knows that alternative sentencing may be available and knows, under what circumstances, a judge is likely to grant a request for this type of sentencing, the most compelling arguments to use, to whom this type of sentencing applies and to what offenses is it applicable. This is simply one of the reasons why it is so important to contact the skilled attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm, as they are well-versed in alternative sentencing options and are dedicated to helping their clients avoid a jail or prison sentence.

Electronic monitoring (also commonly referred to as “house arrest”) is an example of a type of alternative sentence. When ordered, it allows a convicted defendant to serve his or her jail or prison sentence from the comfort of his or her home. Certain non-violent offenders who have been charged with marijuana crimes may request this type of relief, but only a truly experienced attorney knows the most convincing arguments that will persuade a judge that this type of sentencing is more appropriate than incarceration.

Electronic monitoring is closely supervised, since it has the potential for abuse. The individual who has been granted this type of relief is fitted with an electronic sensor (usually an ankle-bracelet) that is linked by telephone lines to a central computer that puts out a continuous signal. Depending on the facts of the individual case, the accused may be permitted to work, attend school, shop for groceries, do laundry and perform other personal errands and will generally be permitted to attend court-ordered programs (such as Narcotics Anonymous or another type of outpatient drug rehabilitation program) and his or her court appearances, so long as it is pre-approved by the court and/or the probation department. He or she must, however, return during the set “curfew” hours. If the signal is interrupted because the accused has gone beyond his or her authorized boundaries, the central computer records the date and time of the signal’s disappearance and reappearance. If the signal interruption occurred during a time when the individual wearing the bracelet should have been at home, the violation will be checked by the probation department and the individual may be subject to arrest, a probation violation and incarceration.

Electronic monitoring is actually a request that is granted by the probation department, not the judge, but the judge does play an important role in its implementation. The judge is the one who refers the case to the probation department, so it is he or she who must first be convinced that the defendant is a good candidate for this type of alternative sentencing before he or she will even make that referral. This is why it is imperative that the accused hires an experienced criminal attorney who knows how to persuade the judge to at least submit the case to the probation department.

The exceptional attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm have an in-depth knowledge about all of the alternative sentencing options that are available to their clients, which allows them to present the most gripping arguments to the judge that reveal why electronic monitoring is not only appropriate for their client, but for the court system and society as well. Because of this vast knowledge, they are also available to discuss the advantages and costs of this type of sentencing with their clients, to make sure that electronic monitoring, if requested, is right for each individual client. To learn more, contact these outstanding attorneys today for a free consultation.

Alcohol Education Programs in Fresno County, California

In California, there are several levels of Alcohol Education Programs that are offered. In order to enroll in one of the programs, one must be referred, either by the court or the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

BEWARE: Completing an alcohol program may not satisfy the DMV. That is just one reason why it is critical that you consult with a California criminal defense lawyer that concentrates on DUI defense.

Driving Under the Influence programs in Fresno County, California:

D.A.T.E.
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
1444 Fulton Street,
Fresno, California 93721
Phone: 559-268-6475; Fax: 559-268-6967

D.A.T.E.
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
2640 Jensen Avenue,
Sanger, California 93657
Phone: 559-875-0249; Fax: 559-875-0276

Kings View Community Services
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
4111 N. Golden State Boulevard,
Fresno, California 93722
Phone: 559-277-9880; Fax: 559-277-8998

Special Services Community Center
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
855 West Ashlan Avenue,
Suite 101,
Clovis, California 93612
Phone: 559-348-0129; Fax: 559-348-1367

Special Services Community Center
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
661 South Madera Avenue,
Kerman, California 93730
Phone: 559-846-8444; Fax: 559-348-1367

Special Services Community Center
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
749 G Street,
Reedley, California 93654
Phone: 559-637-1036; Fax: 559-637-1036

» Return to Driving Under the Influence program in California, directory of service providers

Note: This list is provided for convenience and informational purposes only. We do not recommend or endorse any specific Alcohol or Drug Risk Reduction Program.

Alcohol Education Programs in Napa County, California

In California, there are several levels of Alcohol Education Programs that are offered. In order to enroll in one of the programs, one must be referred, either by the court or the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

BEWARE: Completing an alcohol program may not satisfy the DMV. That is just one reason why it is critical that you consult with a California criminal defense lawyer that concentrates on DUI defense.

Driving Under the Influence programs in Napa County, California:

Napa County DDP
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
900 Coombs Street,
Room M16,
Napa, California 94559
Phone: 707-253-4264; Fax: 707-259-8039

» Return to Driving Under the Influence program in California, directory of service providers

Note: This list is provided for convenience and informational purposes only. We do not recommend or endorse any specific Alcohol or Drug Risk Reduction Program.

Alcohol Education Programs in Santa Cruz County, California

In California, there are several levels of Alcohol Education Programs that are offered. In order to enroll in one of the programs, one must be referred, either by the court or the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

BEWARE: Completing an alcohol program may not satisfy the DMV. That is just one reason why it is critical that you consult with a California criminal defense lawyer that concentrates on DUI defense.

Driving Under the Influence programs in Santa Cruz County, California:

Alto DDP
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
10 Alexander Street,
Watsonville, California 95076
Phone: 831-728-2233; Fax: 831-728-0870

Alto DDP
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
271 Water Street,
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Phone: 831-423-2003; Fax: 831-459-6504

Janus DDP
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
200 7th Avenue,
Suite 150,
Santa Cruz, California 95062
Phone: 831-462-5267; Fax: 831-462-4970

Triad Community Services
(Service Provided: First Offender)
1000 A Emeline Avenue,
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Phone: 831-425-0112; Fax: 831-425-1847

» Return to Driving Under the Influence program in California, directory of service providers

Note: This list is provided for convenience and informational purposes only. We do not recommend or endorse any specific Alcohol or Drug Risk Reduction Program.

California Criminal Law – Flying Under the Influence (FUI / FWI) Punishment

Flying an aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs (FUI / FWI) is a serious crime. This applies to both commercial and private airplanes. Flying under the influence of alcohol or drugs can be charged as a federal and/or state crime. Pilots who fly under the influence can be charged under federal and/or state law at the discretion of the prosecuting agencies.

Crew members of civil aircraft are governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA rules state that no one may serve as a crew member if he or she has consumed alcohol within eight hours of a flight. Furthermore, anyone with a BAC of .04 or greater or is under the influence of drugs or alcohol may not serve as a crew member. These over-inclusive rules indicate the seriousness with which the FAA looks upon flying under the influence. A person found violating these strict rules faces imprisonment, fines, and revocation of his or her pilot’s license.

Pilots of civil aircraft are subject to an Implied Consent Law. This means that any pilot who has been arrested on suspicion of flying under the influence of alcohol or drugs must submit to a chemical test or face large fines and license suspension or revocation.

Pilots arrested for driving under the influence face reporting requirements with the FAA. Pilots must report driving under the influence convictions or DMV driver’s license suspensions to the FAA within 60 days. Anyone who fails to report a conviction or driver’s license suspension faces revocation of his or her pilot’s license.

In most cases, a pilot who reports a DUI / DWI conviction or driver’s license suspension to the FAA does not lose his or her pilot’s license. The pilot generally is required to undergo a substance abuse or psychiatric evaluation. Depending on the results, the pilot may be required to enroll in a substance abuse treatment program, submit to close monitoring by the FAA, or undergo random drug or alcohol testing.

The laws surrounding FUI / FWI are complex and challenging because pilots must follow both state law and the Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARS, governed by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is important for criminal defense attorneys who practice in FUI defense in California to be completely up-to-date with all the laws and regulations.

Because of the strict penalties imposed against pilots for flying under the influence and DUI / DWI, it’s critical to have excellent legal representation. A lawyer with experience defending flying under the influence cases can mount an aggressive defense and keep consequences to a minimum.