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.

Experienced Los Angeles DUI Attorneys

It is important to hire a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer when faced with a Los Angeles criminal charge. Not all criminal lawyers are the same. You want to make sure that you are given all the resources possible to resolve your criminal case with minimal repercussions. At the Kavinoky Law Firm, you not only get the knowledge and experience to win, you get an entire team working around the clock on your behalf.  Our main objective is to remove all the burdens off your shoulders. Let us handle the case, so you can sleep well at night.
There are many aspects and procedures that can be challenged to help get you off your criminal charge. We spare no expense to make sure we have uncovered all avenues of your Los Angeles criminal case.  We understand the impact of a criminal charge on your life and livelihood.

We focus on a plethora of Los Angeles criminal charges including:
Assault
Appeals
Battery
Bench Warrants
Crimes Against Children
Domestic Violence
DUI
DUI Drugs
Drug Crimes
Drug Possession
Embezzlement
Expungement
Federal Cases
Fraud
Gang Offense
Grand Theft
Investigatory
Manslaughter
Murder
Robbery
Sex Crimes
Violent Crimes
Weapons Crimes
White Collar Crimes

Big-Firm Resources, Small-Firm Feel

• The Kavinoky Law Firm has more than a dozen lawyers and a support staff of 25.

• We employ a team approach: Your defense strategy will be engineered by founding lawyer Darren Kavinoky, Senior Supervising Attorney Joel Koury, Northern California Managing Attorney Michael Meehan, and their handpicked team. The Kavinoky Law Firm has more than a century of combined legal experience, and over 500 completed jury trials.

• We are one of the largest law firms in California that concentrates on defending cases involving alcohol and drugs. This translates into greater resources for your defense.

• We employ a specialized Intranet Toolkit to ensure all of our attorneys effectively collaborate, share information, and work in concert.

• All of our attorneys use Blackberries or Droids. This means that you’ll receive an immediate response to your emails and phone calls and outstanding customer service.

• We have a network of attorneys throughout the United States for cases that involve issues that cross state lines, such as foreign prior convictions, or those involving out-of-state driver’s licenses that could be impacted by an action in California.

• We conduct frequent comprehensive case-evaluation roundtables, where a “mastermind” group of lawyers each review your case, and come up with the best approach that is designed to achieve the best possible result in your criminal case.

• We have an-house appellate department to address writs and appeals. We are willing and equipped to fight (and have successfully fought), significant legal issues all the way to the Supreme Court.

• We employ a team approach, which translates into more resources to come up with the winning strategy in your case.

Our Los Angeles Offices:
• Encino
• Los Angeles

 

We proudly cover these areas of Greater Los Angeles:
Acton, Agoura, Agoura Hills , Alhambra, Antelope Valley, Arcadia, Artesia, Avalon, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Bradbury, Brentwood, Burbank, Calabasas, Camarillo, Carson, Claremont, Commerce, Canoga Park, Century City, Chatsworth, Commerce, Compton, Covina, Cudahy, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, East Los Angeles, El Monte, El Segundo, Encino, Gardena, Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Industry, Irwindale, La Canada-Flintridge, Lake Balboa, Lakewood, La Mirada, Lancaster, La Puente, La Verne, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles , Lynwood, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Maywood, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Newhall, North Hollywood, Northridge, Norwalk, Oxnard, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Quartz Hill, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach , Reseda, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, Studio City, Sylmar, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Three Points, Torrance, Valencia, Van Nuys, Ventura, Vernon, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westwood, West Los Angeles, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills.

California Supreme Court Allows Traffic Stops Based on Uncorroborated Tips

In a setback for privacy and civil rights, the California Supreme Court has ruled that police can use anonymous tips to stop suspected drunk drivers even if the officer doesn’t spot any illegal activity. An attorney plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that a California Highway Patrol officer acted properly when he pulled over a San Joaquin Valley woman after an anonymous caller said her van was weaving, even though the officer witnessed no signs of impairment. The woman later failed a field sobriety test and was arrested for heroin possession.

The ruling gives police in California the broadest powers in the nation to pull over suspected drunk drivers and other motorists based only on anonymous tips. In recent months, the state has posted signs urging motorists to report suspected DUI / DWI drivers to the CHP. Those signs, coupled with the high court’s decision, open the door for abuse by drivers involved in road rage or grudges unrelated to criminal activity.

Three justices opposed the ruling, saying police should not be allowed to stop motorists without witnessing illegal activity. “One of the hallmarks of the liberty guaranteed to persons in this country is that agents of the government cannot arrest, seize or detain them without a good reason,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the minority.

The panel’s ruling comes on the heels of a string of high court decisions that erode the rights of criminal suspects across California and the nation. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that police can enter some DUI / DWI suspects’ homes without a warrant to administer chemical tests.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police can enter suspects’ homes without knocking if they have a valid search warrant. However, the justices also recently ruled that police cannot pat down a suspect for weapons based on an uncorroborated tip.

Defense attorneys decried the California Supreme Court’s ruling on anonymous tips as a setback for privacy and civil rights that may resonate for decades.

“Anyone can call in an anonymous tip for any reason,” said Darren T. Kavinoky, one of California’s top criminal defense attorneys. “This ruling essentially allows police to go on fishing expeditions in the vehicle of any driver unfortunate enough to be the target of an anonymous tipster.”

Despite the setback, motorists arrested for drunk driving or any other criminal offense involving an anonymous tip still have numerous options to launch an effective defense. An experienced California criminal defense attorney can challenge evidence on a number of fronts and dismantle a prosecutor’s case.

The top attorneys of the Kavinoky Law Firm are experienced in defending DUI / DWI cases and other criminal charges throughout California. The firm’s expert attorneys will develop an aggressive defense strategy to challenge charges of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, drug possession, or any other criminal offense.