Superior Court Of California, County of Trinity

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.

Trinity County Superior Court
101 Court Street, Weaverville, CA 96093

» Trinity 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

The Lookback Period for Priorability

In California, there is a 10-year “lookback” period for prior drunk driving convictions. Anyone with a DUI / DWI conviction who is arrested for drinking and driving within 10 years faces increased punishment on the new count. If more than 10 years pass between arrests, the later arrest is treated as a first-time DUI.

Prior convictions affect many issues in a criminal case, from bail to sentencing. Multiple-offense DUI drivers face greater license suspensions, fines, alcohol education classes, etc. A California attorney experienced at defending drunk driving cases can help drivers with multiple DUI arrests craft a defense and mitigate the consequences.

DUI / DWI offenses which will count as prior convictions include driving under the influence (California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a)), driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 percent or greater (23152(b)), DUI with injury (23153 (a) and (b)), reckless driving involving alcohol, also known as “wet-reckless” (23103.5). The 10-year period is calculated from arrest date to arrest date.

Although the conviction itself must take place before the conviction for the current offense, there is no requirement that either the offense or the conviction be before the offense for which the defendant is being tried. The California Legislature has declared that the timing of court proceedings should not affect the court’s ability to impose enhanced penalties for multiple offenses.

For example, a defendant may be in the midst of a second-time DUI case, which can sometimes take several months to conclude. If during that time the defendant is arrested for a third DUI offense, then 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.

The California Legislature has enacted increasingly harsh penalties for drivers with multiple drunk driving offenses within a 10-year period. The surest way to fight back is to consult with a DUI / DWI lawyer experienced in defending multiple drinking and driving cases.

One is considered to be innocent until proven guilty in a criminal proceeding such as a drunk driving case. In criminal courts the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The standard of requiring a prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt applies in driving under the influence cases and in all criminal cases in California. Often it is difficult for the state to achieve this very high standard when faced by an able DUI attorney who has what it takes to make it difficult for the prosecutor to prove each and every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

To the casual observer the elements that make up a drunk driving offense may seem straightforward, but there are several nuances that an experienced DUI attorney understands. This understanding allows the attorney to poke holes in any one of the elements. If your attorney can create reasonable doubt as to just one of the elements, then a jury will have to find that you are not guilty of the charges.

It is important to understand that you must be under the influence at the time of driving. It must also be understood that there are two separate charges that apply to DUI cases. Those are Vehicle Code 23152(a) Sections which says it is a misdemeanor to drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and Vehicle Code 23152(b) Sections which say it is a misdemeanor to drive with .08 percent or more of alcohol in your blood. While sometimes a person will be charged under (a) and not (b), a person charged with (b) will always be charged with (a) as well.

When a person is being charged under Vehicle Code Section 23512(b), the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood alcohol level of the motorist was .08 percent or higher at the time the person was driving. If the police officer conducts a chemical test an hour after a person was pulled over, there is a chance that a good DUI attorney will be able to raise doubt as to whether the blood alcohol level was really .08 percent at the time of driving.

The standard of reasonable doubt in a driving while intoxicated case is the same high standard applied in a murder case. There is a responsibility upon a jury to take this standard seriously in order to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole. It is a defense attorney of quality who can convey this responsibility to the jury members in order to have them apply the high standard of proof to a drunk-driving case. The experienced attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm are well-known for their skill and integrity. Call for a free consultation.

Many drivers arrested for DUI / DWI in California take a roadside breath test to determine blood alcohol content (BAC) before being arrested. Although police and prosecutors believe PAS (Preliminary Alcohol Screening) test results are damning evidence in drunk driving cases, these results can often be successfully challenged in court. An experienced California criminal defense attorney who specializes in DUI / DUI cases has the skills needed to effectively challenge PAS tests in driving under the influence cases.

DUI / DWI criminal defense attorneys have been dealing with the problems that arise with roadside breath testing for years. In the early days of roadside breath testing, it was accepted that the technology was somewhat inferior, and that roadside PAS tests were not reliable enough to be admitted into evidence. Therefore, if police used an alcohol screening test during a drinking and driving investigation, the only thing that could be introduced in evidence at a DUI / DWI trial was that the PAS machine indicated the presence of alcohol – the numeric results were excluded.

Unfortunately, that is no longer true. Courts hearing DUI / DWI cases now allow the numeric results of the PAS tests to be considered by the jury if certain evidentiary foundations are established. Therefore, motorists are taking roadside breath tests after being advised that their participation is entirely voluntary, only to have the numeric results introduced at trial.

There are two types of roadside breath tests – PAS or PBT tests, which are merely screening tests given to support the officer’s decision to make an arrest, and roadside evidential tests. There are critical distinctions between the two.

The PAS, or preliminary alcohol screening, is a voluntary test. It is not an “implied consent” test, which means that the driver is under no obligation to take a PAS test. In fact, in many states, the officer must advise the driver that the test is not required, but if an arrest is made, the driver will then be required to submit to a test of his or her blood or breath to determine alcohol content.

Unfortunately, many police officers ignore this responsibility during drunk driving roadside investigations. Many times, the driver is told that he or she must submit to a test as a collection tube is thrust into the mouth of the awestruck motorist. A DUI / DWI arrest invariably follows. It likely would have followed anyway, except now the unwitting motorist has provided additional evidence for the government to use against him or her.

The recent addition of the evidential PAS test, also known as the “E-PAS” or AlcoSensor IV XL, has made roadside DUI / DWI investigations even more complicated. These versions of the roadside breath test are the evidential test that is required under the Implied Consent Law. The exact same machine is used to administer this mandatory test as is used for what was, moments earlier before the driver was arrested, an optional test. The only difference is that they are able to print out the results instead of merely viewing the results on an LED readout.

Unfortunately, accused drivers are often unable to pinpoint the moment that they are placed under arrest for drinking and driving. One minute they are offered a roadside test, and told it is optional. A moment later, they are told that a roadside breath alcohol test on the same machine is mandatory. It isn’t hard to understand how a driver can become confused. This is why many DUI / DWI criminal defense lawyers advise people to refuse all roadside breath tests and insist upon a blood test if they are ever the target of a drunk driving investigation.

Once an arrest is made, California’s Implied Consent Law is triggered. A failure to give a blood or breath sample following a drunk driving arrest can result in administrative sanctions from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) which begin with a one-year driver’s license suspension, with no opportunity for a restricted or provisional license during that year.

Roadside breath testing arose to address a significant issue in drunk driving prosecutions – because of the typical time-lapse between driving and testing, there was often an issue of whether the driver’s BAC could have been below the legal limit at the time of driving. The aim of roadside breath testing in drunk driving cases was to eliminate that issue by fixing the blood or breath alcohol level (BAC) at a time closer to the time of driving.

While this may have been a worthy goal, there are significant problems that overshadow any advances made. The challenges to both the PAS test – the pre-arrest roadside breath test – and the E-PAS – the post-arrest roadside breath test – are the same, because they are taken on the same machine. The distinction is that the E-PAS is hooked up to a printer, providing the DUI / DWI arrestee a copy of the printout of the faulty device.

The inherent flaws in breath testing work to the advantage of the accused drunk driver. DUI / DWI prosecutions are just like any other criminal case – in order for prosecutors to get a conviction, they must prove each element of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor is unable to present a case that is 100 percent free of reasonable doubt, the driver cannot be convicted. This is the requirement in every criminal case, whether it is driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI drugs, vehicular manslaughter, robbery, murder, or any other offense.

In order for a breath test to prove a motorist’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there are certain evidentiary foundations that must be observed. Thus, the most basic challenge to breath tests lies in the calibration, maintenance and accuracy of the testing machine. Both field breath testing units and stationhouse breath testing units are subject to problems, and it is vital to explore these issues in every drunk driving prosecution.

It’s also critical to determine whether the officer who gave the breath test was qualified to do so. There are rules and regulations regarding the administration of breath tests, and it is imperative that only those with the appropriate training perform these tests on motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.

One effective challenge to roadside breath tests relates to the technology of the machine itself. The roadside PAS devices are “fuel cell” machines. Alcohol is oxidized on an electromagnetic plate, and the amount of electrochemical energy generated is converted to a number that is supposedly equal to the blood-alcohol level of the motorist.

This technology creates the possibility that other compounds in the human breath are being misinterpreted as alcohol, and delivering inflated BAC results. Mouth alcohol is one factor that can skew the results of a breath test.

Mouth alcohol is one of the most significant problems with forensic breath testing. The danger of mouth alcohol contamination instigates many of the rules and regulations in breath testing, such as a 15- or 20-minute waiting period, observing the subject to ensure they do not regurgitate or introduce foreign material in the mouth, and the requirement of obtaining two similar results. These are all critical issues in DUI / DWI cases, and especially in cases involving the PAS machine.

PAS machines don’t have mouth alcohol detectors, also called slope detectors. A slope detector is a computer software program that is designed to detect a rapid drop-off – or slope – in the alcohol level of an individual’s breath sample. The machine is not smart enough to know whether it is analyzing alcohol molecules in the deep lung air – which is supposed to be measuring – or alcohol molecules that have been trapped in the mouth or regurgitated from the stomach. This is particularly problematic when the driver is given a breath test shortly after drinking, while alcohol is still in the stomach, or has been trapped in the mouth due to dental work, food traps, or other factors.

PAS tests also lack the ability to measure breath temperature. Every calculation the machine makes is based on the assumption that the subject’s breath temperature is 34 degrees centigrade. Unfortunately, just like the other assumptions that are made about the so-called “average” person, any variation from “average” can greatly impact the reading. Every degree of temperature elevation – which could be from illness or activities like dancing or sports – equals a 7 percent increase in alcohol percentage.

Many motorists targeted for drunk driving investigations are simply improper subjects for breath testing. DUI / DWI criminal defense lawyers are aware that those who have had recent dental work, or who suffer from GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disorder, the medical term for a type of persistent heartburn) are inappropriate subjects for breath testing. There are many other conditions that could cause an unnaturally high reading on a breath test.

Because of the inherent problems with breath testing, anyone arrested for DUI / DWI should contact an experienced California criminal defense attorney who is well-versed in these issues. The results of the roadside breath test are often the most damning evidence offered in a DUI / DWI case. It is essential that these results be challenged to achieve a successful result.

Many DUI / DWI defendants are sentenced to jail, but incarceration offers no benefit to drunk driving defendants who have problems with alcohol. Because substance abuse is such a widespread problem, the court system is undergoing a fundamental shift in the way it regards individuals with alcohol and drug problems.

Judges and prosecutors now realize that it is ineffective to merely lock away alcoholics without treating underlying addiction issues. Because of this changing approach, treatment in an established and state licensed drug and alcohol rehabilitation program has become an accepted alternative sentencing option. An experienced DUI / DWI defense lawyer from the Kavinoky Law Firm can advise whether treatment may be an option in a California drunk driving case.

The length of treatment varies, but the average time is 30 days. Most rehabilitation facilities are privately owned, and can be either co-ed or gender-specific. Because of a shortage of rehab beds, many facilities have a waiting list.

Treatment may include behavior modification and/or medication. Three commonly used behavioral treatments for alcohol abuse and alcoholism – motivation enhancement therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and 12-step therapy – can significantly reduce drinking in the year following treatment. Medication such as naltrexone (ReVia™), an anti-craving medication, has been shown to be effective, especially when combined with behavior therapy.

Alcohol and drug rehabilitation can replace alcohol education programs that are part of many DUI defendants’ sentences. Rehabilitation is typically set as a condition of probation if the offender is willing and has been accepted into a program. Time spent in rehabilitation is credited toward the completion of a jail sentence in what is known as good time custody credits. Once the program is completed, certification is submitted to the court. If rehabilitation is not successfully completed, the offender violates probation, and likely will go to jail.

For individuals with multiple DUIs on their records or unresolved issues with alcohol, rehabilitation can be a valuable alternative to incarceration. A California attorney experienced in defending drunk driving cases can review each case to determine whether rehabilitation or another form of alternate sentencing is a viable option.

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.