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.

Superior Court Of California, County of Imperial

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.

Imperial County Superior Court
939 Main Street, El Centro, CA 92243

Brawley Courthouse
220 Main Street, Brawley, CA 92227

Calexico Courthouse
415 East 4th Street, Calexico, CA 92231

Winterhaven Court
2124 Winterhaven Drive, Winterhaven, CA 92283

» Imperial 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 Bernardino

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.

San Bernardino Superior Court
351 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92415

Barstow Courthouse
235 East Mountain View Avenue Barstow, CA 92311

Fontana Courthouse
17780 Arrow Boulevard Fontana, CA 92335

Needles Courthouse
1111 Bailey Street Needles, CA 92363

Big Bear Courthouse
477 Summit Boulevard Big Bear Lake, CA 92315

Joshua Tree Courthouse
6527 White Feather Road Joshua Tree, CA 92252

Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse
8303 North Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Twin Peaks Courthouse
26010 State Highway 189, P.O. Box 394 Twin Peaks, CA 92391

Chino Courthouse
13260 Central Avenue Chino, CA 91710

Redlands Courthouse
216 Brookside Avenue Redlands, CA 92373

Victorville Courthouse
14455 Civic Drive Victorville, CA 92392

» San Bernardino 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 Ventura

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.

Ventura County Superior Court
Ventura Hall of Justice
Government Center,
800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009

East County Department
3855F Alamo Street, Simi Valley, CA 93063

Juvenile Courthouse
4353 Vineyard Avenue, Oxnard, CA 93036

» Ventura 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 to Strike Prior Convictions/Bifurcate Jury Trial

The skilled DUI / DWI defense lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm have the experience needed to use pretrial motions to the accused drunk driver’s advantage in a California drinking and driving case. One motion that can be employed is a request to strike prior convictions for driving under the influence from the defendant’s record.

Prior DUI / DWI convictions have a dramatic impact on every aspect of a drinking and driving case – from bail to sentencing. California has a 10-year "washout" period for driving while intoxicated convictions, meaning that if a person is arrested for drunk driving within 10 years of a prior offense, the second arrest will be charged as a multiple DUI / DWI. If that second arrest occurs more than 10 years later, then the second arrest is treated as a first offense.

Punishment for a multiple drunk driving offense can include jail sentences, large fines, attendance at mandatory alcohol education classes, and other repercussions. When someone suffers a second, third, or fourth offense within a 10-year span, the punishment exposure goes up dramatically.

Drivers are sometimes charged with a second– or third-time offender even though their previous cases are still being resolved in the courts. The California Legislature has declared that the timing of court proceedings should not impact the courts in imposing enhanced penalties for multiple offenses.

For example, a defendant may be in the midst of a second-time DUI case and get arrested for a third drunk driving offense. The court in the third case can sentence the defendant as a third-time drunk driver, even though the defendant has not been convicted as a second-time DUI driver. The only hard and fast rule is that the offenses occur within a 10-year span.

Because of this pitfall, a driver facing multiple unresolved DUI cases may want to consider requesting a bifurcated trial. This is where a prior is tried separately from, and after, the DUI charges. Because prior convictions are enhancements and not elements of the DUI offense, the court must grant bifurcation if the defendant makes the request in a timely manner.

In some instances, prior driving under the influence convictions can transform a misdemeanor drunk driving charge into a felony, with the possibility that the judge in the case will impose time in state prison. That is why it is critical that a skilled DUI attorney analyze any prior convictions to determine the best defense.

Before deciding to challenge a prior conviction, the defense lawyer must be fully informed about the prior conviction. This is usually achieved by a written request from the convicting court. The type of documentation the court will usually provide includes minute orders, the defendant’s written waiver of constitutional rights, and possibly transcripts of prior plea proceedings.

Some prior convictions cannot be used by the prosecution to seek enhanced punishment, such as those convictions that have been determined to be invalid under the U.S. Constitution. Juvenile convictions also cannot be used for enhancement purposes.

Crimes that qualify as prior crimes include the common DUI charge (California Vehicle Code Section 23152, DUI with injury (VC 23153), "wet reckless" (VC 23103.5), out-of-state DUI convictions (VC 23626), federal DUI convictions (VC 13352d), Boating under the Influence (Harbors and Navigation Code Section 655), and those DUI convictions that have been dismissed per Penal Code Section 1203.4 (the expungement provision).

Only one constitutional challenge is allowed per prior conviction, and the court’s ruling is binding on the prosecution, the defendant, and the DMV in all future judicial and administrative proceedings. Failure to obtain the records in a timely manner may result in denial of the motion to strike or its postponement until the time of sentencing. An experienced criminal defense drunk driving attorney will employ an effective motion to strike prior convictions in an attempt to prevent past acts from increasing punishment in a California driving while intoxicated case.

A motion to strike a prior conviction must state the specific constitutional rights the defendant is alleging will be violated by the prior conviction being used to enhance punishment. For example, the defendant can assert that the prior guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently offered.

A California lawyer experienced in defending multiple DUI / DWI cases will evaluate any prior convictions to determine whether they can be stricken from the defendant’s record to avoid additional punishment.

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.

Penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana

Driving under the influence of marijuana in California carries severe penalties that vary depending on whether the offense was filed as a misdemeanor or as a felony, on how many times the accused has been convicted of this or similar offenses and on whether there were circumstances that aggravated the offense. The penalties for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) are similar to those imposed in an alcohol-related DUI case and may include probation, drug education classes, heavy fines, license suspensions and jail or prison time. One’s best chance to avoid these devastating penalties is to hire a skilled California DUID criminal defense lawyer who knows the defenses that will convince the prosecutor, judge and/or jury that his or her client is innocent of the charges.

Driving under the influence of marijuana in California, when charged as a first offense, typically carries a three year informal (unsupervised) probationary sentence that includes heavy fines (totaling up to $3,500 once all the assessments are added up), completing a three month drug education program and a 90 day driver’s license restriction that only allows the individual to drive to and from work and the drug education program. Although jail time is usually not imposed in connection with a first offense (unless there were aggravating circumstances), it is possible to spend up to six months in jail if convicted of this charge.

When the accused has suffered either a prior DUI conviction or a “wet-reckless” conviction within 10 years of the charged offense, the penalties increase. A second conviction may result in a three-to-five year informal probationary sentence that will typically include the same maximum fine, at least 96 hours (and up to one year) in the county jail, an 18 month drug education program and a driver’s license restriction for the duration of the program that only permits the individual to drive to and from work and the program.

A third or subsequent D.U.I. offense (or even a first offense if someone was injured) may be charged as a felony, subjecting the accused to sixteen months or two or three years in the state prison. It will typically be filed as a misdemeanor, with a five year informal probationary period (formal if a felony), the same maximum fine, four months to one year in the county jail and a three year driver’s license suspension. An individual convicted of a third or subsequent DUI will also be labeled a “habitual traffic offender” for three years, subjecting the accused to an additional 30days in jail and an additional $1,000 fine for a first-time designation or to an additional six months in jail and an additional $2,000 fine for a second or subsequent designation within a 7 year period.

Aggravating factors will enhance one’s sentence and include anything that made the driving under the influence of marijuana charge even more egregious. Examples include, but are not limited to, driving with a child under 14 years of age in the car, reckless driving or refusing to submit to a chemical test. Each of these enhancements carries its own additional penalties, but it should be noted that refusing to submit to a blood or urine test will result in a one, two or three year driver’s license suspension, depending on whether the charge was the driver’s first, second or third within the statutory 10 year period.

Penalties may also include a series of Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings or any other program that the judge deems appropriate, based on the facts of the case. These programs may be ordered in addition to the mandatory drug education program.

The outstanding criminal attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm are dedicated to helping their clients through this difficult time and know a variety of alternative sentencing options that may be available to and preferred by their clients. For the most trusted legal advice and the most vigorous defense, contact them today for a free consultation.