Category: Driving Under the Influence

California DUI | Los Angeles DUI Lawyer| California DUI Defense | No Cuffs

Alcohol Education Programs in Placer County, California

Alcohol Education Programs in Placer 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 Placer County, California:

Sierra Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
(Service Provided: Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
1A Sierragate Plaza,
Suite 110,
Roseville, California 95678
Phone: 916-782-3737; Fax: 916-782-3739

Sierra Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
11960 Heritage Oak Place,
Suite 9,
Auburn, California 95603
Phone: 530-885-1961; Fax: 530-885-0713

Sierra Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
8491 Northlake Boulevard,
Kings Beach, California 96143
Phone: 530-546-5641; Fax: 530-546-5480

Sierra Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
1530 3rd Street,
Suite 202,
Lincoln, California 95648
Phone: 916-434-8927

Pacific Educational Services
(Service Provided: First Offender)
11795 Education Street,
Suite 220,
Auburn, California 95602
Phone: 530-888-1010; Fax: 530-888-9065

» 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 Siskiyou County, California

Alcohol Education Programs in Siskiyou 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 Siskiyou County, California:

Cascade Circle, Inc.
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
1263 South Main Street,
Yreka, California 96097
Phone: 530-222-8302; Fax: 530-222-5872

» 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.

DMV Process

In California, an arrest for a DUI triggers two cases. One case is in the criminal courts. The other is a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) case. A California DUI lawyer can handle both cases. Due to a recent change in California law, courts can no longer suspend a driver’s license. Only the DMV can suspend a driver’s license. The DMV will suspend a driver’s license upon a finding of Guilty at the DMV hearing or in the criminal case.

A DMV hearing must be requested within ten days of a drunk driving arrest in California. If a hearing is not requested in a timely manner, one may not be granted. Ten days means ten calendar days. Weekends and holidays count as part of the ten days. Failure to request a hearing will result in an automatic thirty-day suspension of driving privileges. Drivers from out-of-state should request a hearing too. Under the Interstate Driver’s License Compact an out-of-state driver may have his or her driving privileges suspended as well.

An Administrative Per Se Hearing (APS) or DMV hearing follows an arrest for driving under the influence. Generally, the two major issues at an APS hearing are whether the driver submitted to a chemical test or whether the driver refused a chemical test. If the test was submitted to, the hearing will be about the legitimacy of the tests. If there is alleged refusal, the hearing will concern whether the driver was properly warned of the consequences of refusal, among other considerations.

Where the chemical test was done, three issues arise. The first is whether the officers had reasonable cause that the driver was under the influence. Second is whether the arrest was lawful, and the third issue is whether the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) levels were above the legal limit at the time of driving.

Where there was no chemical test and the issue is refusal, it must be found out whether the driver was properly warned of the consequences of refusal. It must then be determined whether the driver refused the test after having been warned of the consequences. Refusal to submit to the chemical tests pursuant to the Implied Consent Law will result in longer license suspensions than are handed down to those who do consent to the tests. For example, a typical suspension for a first-time DUI can be four months, while those who refuse to test will get a one-year suspension with no leniency to allow for driving to work.

The Department of Motor Vehicles hearing differs from criminal court action in that the judge and the prosecutor are the same person. Furthermore, the DMV hearing is a process that is civil and not criminal in nature, and therefore fewer constitutional protections are available. Generally,a skilled and experienced California DUI Lawyer will review the circumstances of the arrest through the police reports and the chemical tests in order to launch an attack on the evidence at the DMV hearing as being hearsay, and therefore inadmissible. If the assault on the evidence is successful, a suspension of driving privileges will not occur.

Superior Court Of California, County of Kern

Superior Court Of California, County of Kern

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.

Kern County Superior Court
1415 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301

Kern River Branch
7046 Lake Isabella Blvd., Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Mojave Branch
1773 Highway 58, Mojave, CA 93501

Ridgecrest Branch
132 East Coso Street, Ridgecrest, CA 93555

Delano/McFarland Branch
1122 Jefferson Street, Delano, CA 93215

Shafter/Wasco Branch
325 Central Valley Highway, Shafter, CA 93263

Arvin/Lamont Branch
12022 Main Street, Lamont, CA 93241

Taft/Maricopa Branch
311 Lincoln Street, Taft, CA 93268

» Kern 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

Superior Court Of California, County of San Mateo

Superior Court Of California, County of San Mateo

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.

Northern Branch
1050 Mission Road, South San Francisco CA 94080

Central Branch
800 North Humboldt Street, San Mateo, CA 94401

Southern Branch
400 County Center (formerly 401 Marshall Street), Redwood City, CA 94063

Juvenile Branch
21 Tower Road, San Mateo, CA 94402

» San Mateo 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

Jail

Court Punishment: Jail

A DUI / DWI lawyer will often work to get the charges and the punishment against a client reduced as much as possible. If the charge is felony drunk driving an attorney will commonly ask for a reduced charge of misdemeanor DUI / DWI. When the charge is misdemeanor driving under the influence, a lawyer will attempt to negotiate for lesser charges such a wet-reckless or a dry-reckless. In many cases, the nature of the charge will reflect directly upon the sentence. Whenever there is a jail sentence, the time of the sentence may be lessened if the charges can be reduced.

A person who is convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or driving while intoxicated may quite possibly face a jail sentence. The jail sentence will depend on various factors including the abilities and tenacity of the DUI / DWI lawyer. Prior convictions are often major considerations in determining the length of a prison sentence.

The harshest penalties are reserved for felony DUIs. Felony drunk driving cases include four time offenders and drinking and driving involving injuries to others. On a first offense involving an injury, the jail sentence will be five days to one year in jail if the driver accepts probation. If the driver chooses to decline probation, he or she will face between 90 days and one year in jail. A second driving under the influence offense within the 10 year “lookback” period will result in either a 30 day in jail term or 120 days to one year in jail. If the driver declines probation the 30 day sentence will not be available.

A first time offender won’t likely serve jail time for a simple misdemeanor. The typical first offense will carry no minimum jail sentence. Although there is no minimum, the judge may sentence the driver to 48 hours to six months in jail. An experienced California DUI / DWI attorney can generally help a first time drunk driving offender avoid jail time if there are no special or extraordinary circumstances. This rule applies when a driver agrees to go on probation. If a driver seeks to avoid probation they will face a sentence of 96 hours to six months in jail.

Second time drunk drivers within the 10 year “lookback” period who are willing to accept the conditions of probation can face a 96 hour sentence, a 10 day sentence, or up to year in jail. When the second time offender rejects probation he or she will face 90 days to one year in jail. When a third time offender accepts probation they will face 120 days to one year in jail. When the third time offender rejects the offer of probation they too will face a sentence between 120 days and one year in jail.

At the end of the day, the quality of one’s criminal defense attorney can greatly affect a prison sentence. Judges have discretion to sentence a person to the minimum or maximum sentence, or something in between. Oftentimes it is the lawyer that convinces the judge to be lenient in sentencing.

DMV Penalties

DMV Penalties

These penalties relate to persons over 21 years of age, who were not operating a commercial vehicle. For additional information, please complete a CASE EVALUATION FORM.

First Offense: Where a chemical test was performed, and the results show a BAC of .08 or more, the DMV will suspend the driver’s license for four months.

Where a chemical test is refused, the DMV will suspend for one year. In a first time DUI case where a chemical test is taken, a restricted license may be obtained. Please consult a Southern California DUI Lawyer for details on obtaining a restricted license.

Second Offense (within 10 years of prior offense): Where the chemical test is performed, and results are .08 or greater, DMV will suspend for one year. Where chemical test is refused, two-year revocation.

Third Offense (within 10 years of prior offenses): With chemical test resulting in .08 or greater, two-year revocation; with refusal, three-year revocation.

Fourth Offense (within 10 years of prior offenses): The punishment is the same, whether a chemical test is taken or not. In either case, there is a four-year revocation of driving privileges.

Take note: these license suspensions/revocations are separate and apart from any action taken by the court; these are only the California DMV’s punishment. Curiously, the courts have no problem imposing double punishment in the field of DUI law; that is, both the court and the DMV are taking the person’s driver’s license in separate processes related to the same event.

In any other area of the law, this would be considered double jeopardy. With DUI’s the court considers the court’s suspension to be punishment, but the DMV’s suspension to merely be an administrative sanction. Tell that to the person who just suffered an “administrative sanction.” As far as they are concerned, it is a punishment. There is a section provided that has more information on court-imposed punishment.

Also, be aware that any suspension or revocation imposed by the court does not usually start to run until after the DMV suspension is over with. That means that these suspensions run consecutively, not concurrently.

If you have any questions about the DMV suspensions, or any other aspect of DUI defense, please contact a Southern California DUI Lawyer that is experienced in defending DUI cases.

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test

Drivers under investigation for DUI / DWI typically take field sobriety tests before being arrested. Although many drivers hope they will avoid arrest by “passing” the tests, field sobriety tests exist only to justify an arrest and gather evidence for a court case.

There are two kinds of field sobriety tests: Standardized and Non-standardized. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is one of three field sobriety tests standardized and recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). A skilled DUI / DWI attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm can successfully challenge the results of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test or other field sobriety tests.

Horizontal gaze nystagmus is an involuntary jerking of the eyes as they move from side to side. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test is based on the theory that the greater the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC), the sooner the eyes will begin jerking as they move from side to side.

The officer instructs the driver to follow a small object such as the tip of a pen using only the eyes. Police watch for uneven eye movement or sustained jerking when the eye reaches the furthest point. The officer also will make note if the eye begins jerking before it reaches a 45-degree angle.

Each of these three occurrences counts as a “clue” when observed in each eye. If the officer notes at least four of the six signs, he or she will conclude that there is a 77 percent chance that the driver’s BAC is greater than .10 percent, and the individual will be placed under arrest for drunk driving.

Although it is standardized by the NHTSA, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test is far from foolproof. Nystagmus, or involuntary jerking of the eye, occurs in every individual, regardless of whether he or she has been drinking. Alcohol and drugs may intensify the nystagmus effect, but so can many other factors, including injury or illness.

When an individual drinks alcohol, mental impairment always occurs before physical impairment. Physical impairment can be masked by those with a high tolerance for alcohol, but mental impairment cannot be hidden. Therefore, the mere presence of physical impairment such as involuntary eye jerking doesn’t mean the driver was under the influence of alcohol.

Some officers don’t even administer the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test properly, and their conclusions may be inadmissible in court. The driver’s head and body must be facing the object, so if the officer conducted the test through the driver’s-side window, the results may be inadmissible because the driver’s head was turned at a 45-degree angle.

Luckily for accused drunk drivers, field sobriety tests don’t always hold up in court. The officer’s conclusions can be successfully rebutted during cross-examination. An experienced California DUI / DWI attorney can effectively challenge the results of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test and create reasonable doubt concerning the driver’s guilt.

Urine Testing

Drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI in California are required by law to take a chemical test to measure blood alcohol content (BAC). Drivers suspected of being under the influence of alcohol are given a choice between a blood or a breath test. Drivers believed to be under the influence of drugs must take a blood or urine test.

Urine tests are considered the least reliable of the three types of chemical tests available. Fortunately, urine tests can be effectively challenged in drunk driving or driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases. The experienced defense lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm know the inherent flaws in urine tests and will use that knowledge to craft an aggressive defense strategy.

Urine tests are typically implemented only when a motorist is suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. However, urine tests may be given in drunk driving cases when breath or blood tests are not available.

California law dictates that if a urine test is given, the individual must be provided enough privacy to maintain dignity while still ensuring the accuracy of the sample. When the urine test is requested, drivers are advised to empty their bladders, wait 20 minutes, and then go again.

Urine tests have strict protocols but are prone to human error. Police and technicians routinely fail to follow the required procedures, making test results unreliable.

Urine testing is the least reliable method of testing for blood alcohol content. Because the test involves water rather than blood, the result is usually inflated. The concentration of alcohol in the urine is approximately 1.33 times the concentration of alcohol in the blood at the same time.

Urine tests are equally unreliable in DUID cases, because it’s impossible to determine when a drug was used. They can only detect metabolites, or inactive leftover traces of a drug. For example, a driver who smoked marijuana on a Friday night could test positive the following Tuesday, long after the drug has ceased to have any effect. Obviously, what a driver did on Friday has nothing to do with his or her fitness to drive on Tuesday.

The flaws inherent in urine testing for drugs have been scientifically documented. A study performed by the National Institute of Drug Abuse found that 20 percent of the labs surveyed mistakenly reported the presence of illegal drugs in drug-free urine samples.

Urinalysis also tends to confuse similar chemical compounds. For example, codeine and non-narcotic cough syrup have been known to produce positive results for heroin. By the same token, Advil has produced false positives for marijuana, and Nyquil for amphetamines.

Urine testing is extremely unreliable in both drunk driving and DUID cases, so it’s possible to effectively challenge the test results. A California lawyer with experience defending DUID and DUI / DWI cases can attack the integrity of urine tests and other types of chemical testing, and can effectively fight a drinking and driving or driving under the influence of drugs charge.

The four main types of evidence

California’s driving under the influence of marijuana cases are basically investigated and prosecuted like any other driving under the influence cases in this state. Once an officer detains a suspect, he or she focuses on several types of circumstantial evidence that he or she uses to arrest or release the driver. Although there are some differences between a “drunk driving” investigation and a DUI investigation that involves drugs, the similarities are substantial and include an observation about the driver’s driving pattern, his or her physical signs and symptoms and his or her performance on the field sobriety tests. Because of the ways in which these types of cases are routinely prosecuted, an individual accused of driving under the influence of marijuana needs an attorney who knows what to expect so that he or she can anticipate the appropriate defenses that will most likely result in a favorable outcome for the accused.

Testimony about the accused individual’s driving pattern is often one of the first types of evidence that the judge and jury will hear. The prosecutor typically has the arresting officer testify about all of the ways that he or she believed that the driver drove improperly or unsafely due to his or her drug impairment. With respect to impairment, it should be noted that one will be declared “under the influence” of marijuana if, as a result of the drug, the driver’s nervous system, brain or muscles were impaired (to an appreciable degree) in that he or she no longer had the ability to drive a car in the manner that an ordinarily prudent and cautious person, in full possession of his or her faculties and using reasonable care, would have under similar circumstances.

Physical signs and symptoms of impairment are also heavily relied on by the arresting officer and prosecutor. The officer will testify that the driver displayed “the signs and symptoms that are characteristic of an impaired person”. An example of these, as they pertain to marijuana use, may include red eyes, a foul odor emanating from the driver’s breath, limited attention span and poor physical coordination.

Field sobriety test or “FST” performance is usually what the arresting officer ultimately bases his or her opinion on when he or she determines that the driver is guilty of driving under the influence. It is also the point during the trial where the prosecutor has the arresting officer spend the most time trying to convince the judge and jury that the defendant is guilty of the charged offense. An experienced D.U.I. criminal attorney expects that the arresting officer will go into detail about each and every thing that the accused did wrong while performing these tests and will commonly rebut the evidence by asking the officer to also detail everything that the driver did correctly.

Chemical tests are one of the main differences between an alcohol-related DUI and a marijuana-related DUI. When arrested for “drunk driving” in California, the accused has a choice between taking a blood or breath test. When arrested for DUID (driving under the influence of drugs), the accused has a choice between a blood or urine test. If the test comes back positive for marijuana use, the prosecutor will be sure to tell the judge and jury that the presence of marijuana confirmed the officer’s opinion that the driver was impaired at the time of driving. A skilled defense lawyer knows that this is an incorrect statement and will ensure that the judge and jury understand that a test indicating use is not the same as a test indicating impairment.

The outstanding attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm know the most convincing arguments to challenge this type of evidence and have successfully defended countless clients against this charge. To learn more, contact one of their exceptionally qualified attorneys today for a free case evaluation.