Superior Court Of California, County of Yolo

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.

Yolo County Superior Court
725 Court Street, Woodland, CA 95695

» Yolo 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

New DUI / DWI Sentencing Laws in California

California has created new laws regarding driving under the influence cases. If the driving under the influence or the driving while intoxicated happened on September 20, 2005 or later, the driver will be subject to the new laws. Leave it up to a qualified California DUI / DWI attorney to sort out the differences for you. To have your case evaluated contact The Kavinoky Law Firm.

Before the new law took effect, both the courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles could suspend driver’s license. Now that is not the case. Only the DMV may suspend or restrict a driver’s license. The DMV will suspend or restrict a license following a DMV hearing (administrative per se hearing) or once the D.M.V. has information regarding a drunk driving conviction in the criminal courts. A DUI / DWI lawyer can handle both criminal court and Department of Motor Vehicles hearings.

The new laws in California provide for the DMV to automatically suspend a driver’s license for six months for first time DUI offenders. The driver may request a restricted license to allow for driving to work and to alcohol education classes. Previously, there was a one month wait before a driver could request a restricted license. Now the restricted license may be requested immediately.

Previously, in deciding the length of alcohol education classes, the courts would use a blood alcohol content of .20 percent as their magic number. Now the magic number is .15 percent, which means that any driver whose BAC is .15 percent or higher should expect the possibility of extended education programs.

Generally in a DUI / DWI case a driver is offered probation instead of jail time. There are still some cases where even if a driver accepts probation, the judge may impose a jail sentence. The new California law requires that a driver who refuses probation to serve a mandatory 96 hour jail sentence. 48 hours of that sentence must be served consecutively. The remaining 48 hours must be served within six months of the sentence. A California criminal defense attorney will be able to advise a client convicted of drunk driving on whether or not to accept probation or to take the jail sentence.

Whether or not a driver accepts or rejects probation, fines will still be imposed on the first time offender. The first time offender will face fines ranging from $390 to $1,000 plus penalty assessments. Penalty assessments will practically triple the fine. The current rate for the penalty assessment is 171 percent of the fine.

The second time offender, meaning a driver who has a prior DUI or wet-reckless conviction within 10 years of the second charge, will face an automatic two year license suspension by the DMV. After one year of the license suspension a driver can apply for a restricted license so long as the driver is signed up for alcohol education classes, files a proof of insurance, has an ignition interlock device and has paid all the costs associated with the conditions. It used be the case that a victory at a DMV hearing would mean no suspension of the license for a second time offender, so long as the court also agreed to a restricted license, but times have changed.

Second time offenders will face 10 days in jail or a 96 hour jail sentences even if they accept probation. If probation is declined by the driver, the driver will face a jail sentence of 90 days to one year. Work release or alternative sentences may be appropriate and a California criminal defense attorney will work to achieve such alternative punishments where appropriate.

While third and fourth time offenders are not affected by the new California legislation, drunk drivers or drivers otherwise intoxicated who cause injuries to another do face new regulations. Those new regulations include five days to one year in jail, alcohol education classes, and fines even if the driver accepts probation. When probation is not accepted by the driver, the jail sentence will range from 90 days to one year. The license of a drunk driver who injures another person will be suspended for a full year with no opportunity for them to seek a restricted license.

If a second time DUI / DWI offender injures a person while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, that driver will face a 30 day to one year jail sentence with alcohol education classes, or 120 days to one year in jail with no education courses. These sentences apply if the driver chooses probation. When a driver declines probation they will face 120 days to one year in jail. Any second time offender who injures another will also face a three-year suspension of their driver’s license with a possible restricted license following 18 months if the driver has completed 18-months of alcohol education classes. Fines will also be applied whether the driver accepts probation or not.

The new laws in California drunk driving cases require the expertise of a California DUI / DWI attorney if a person seeks to have the best possible outcome. The new laws affect the courts and the DMV and pose unique issues that should be handled by professionals.

California’s Implied Consent Law dictates that any driver who is lawfully arrested for DUI / DWI must take a chemical test in order to determine their blood alcohol content (BAC).

If the driver refuses to submit to a chemical test of the blood, breath or urine, police can take a blood sample by force – either by holding the driver down, or by threatening to do so. During a forced blood draw, trained medical personnel draw blood to be analyzed for a drunk driving court case.

The United States Supreme Court allowed forced blood draws in drunk driving cases in the landmark 1966 case of Schmerber v. California. The Court ruled that police can take a person’s blood without a warrant for the purpose of chemical testing to determine intoxication, provided that the taking of the sample is done in a medically approved manner, after a lawful arrest, and based upon the reasonable belief that the person is intoxicated. If these three requirements are met, a forced blood draw does not violate the driver’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court ruled that it is unreasonable to require a warrant to draw someone’s blood in a DUI / DWI case because of the temporary nature of alcohol in the blood. However, many opponents believe that forced blood draws are an invasion of privacy and a violation of the right against self-incrimination.

In California, if police take the driver’s blood by force it is recorded as a chemical test refusal. Refusals carry numerous consequences, including fines, jail time, and suspension of driving privileges. Therefore, a forced blood draw may result in both a conviction for DUI and added penalties. Sometimes police say that a DUI suspect refused even when he or she did not. These types of errors sometimes stem from issues that include misunderstandings resulting from language barriers, overreacting police officers, or drivers who fear needles.

An experienced defense attorney may submit a motion to the court to suppress the results of a forced blood draw from the evidence in a drunk driving trial. A suppression motion is a request typically made before the start of trial, where the court is asked to exclude evidence because it was not gathered in a constitutionally valid way.

If this protocol laid out by the Supreme Court for forced blood draws isn’t followed, the DUI defendant may validly claim a violation of his or her Fourth Amendment right. Suppressed evidence cannot be considered by the judge or heard by the jury. According the legal principle of “fruit of the poisonous tree,” any evidence gained as a result of the unconstitutional evidence must also be suppressed.

Suppressing forced blood draws in California drunk driving cases is a serious and necessary weapon in the fight for constitutional rights, and one of the few safeguards the law offers is where a person’s rights have been violated. The knowledgeable DUI / DWI defense attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm will review the procedures used in a forced blood draw to determine whether a driver’s rights have been violated. If the proper protocol was not followed, the defense lawyer will argue that the evidence should be suppressed.

Drivers arrested for DUI / DWI at sobriety checkpoints in California often ask why police are allowed to stop them without probable cause. The answer may come as a surprise – the courts have ruled that probable cause isn’t needed when police operate sobriety checkpoints, as long as certain criteria are followed. However, police don’t always follow those guidelines. An experienced DUI / DWI defense lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm will determine whether police followed established protocol while conducting a sobriety checkpoint.

Stopping a vehicle at a roadblock is considered a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Fourth Amendment states that individuals should be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their person and their belongings. The key factor in Fourth Amendment issues is reasonableness. The officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, or the seizure must be carried out under a plan containing explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.

California’s constitutional principles are based on the same issues. The government’s interests is weighed against the intrusiveness of the detention to determine reasonableness. In California, there must be probable cause in order to justify an investigative stop or detention without a warrant. Probable cause means the officer must be aware of specific facts that some crime has or will take place, and the person stopped is somehow involved in that activity. Reasonableness requires that anyone else in the officer’s position would have reached the same conclusion.

However, not every search and seizure requires a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Searches that are done to pursue an administrative purpose instead of as part of a criminal investigation may be permissible under the Fourth Amendment, even without probable cause. When evaluating an administrative screening, reasonableness is determined by balancing the public interest against the intrusion on the individual. Therefore, some types of roadblocks, such as sobriety checkpoints, are legal, while others are not.

Drunk driving roadblocks are considered to be part of a regulatory scheme with an administrative purpose, and not traditional criminal investigative stops. The primary purpose of a sobriety roadblock is to promote public safety by keeping drunk drivers off the road.

Therefore, if the appropriate guidelines have been followed, DUI checkpoints are legal and don’t require probable cause. The guidelines are fairly straightforward – there must be a random formula – such as every third or fifth vehicle – which limits the discretion of the officers in deciding who to stop. The intrusiveness on individual drivers must be minimal. Each driver’s detention must be brief, involving just a few brief questions that allow the officer to look for signs of intoxication. In addition, officers may shine their flashlights into the vehicle to look for alcoholic beverages. The Supreme Court has ruled that this intrusion on the individual is slight in comparison to the value to society in keeping drunk drivers off the road.

Drivers have also been arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI after being stopped at other types of roadblocks unrelated to sobriety checkpoints. Some of these roadblocks are lawful, and some are not.

The Supreme Court has ruled that roadblocks whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal activity are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. Roadblocks designed to detect illegal drugs are one example. Illegal drugs aren’t believed to pose the same vehicle-related threat to life and limb that exists with drunk driving. If police were allowed to stop drivers to check for every crime facing society, the constitutional protections we enjoy today would disappear. Therefore, because the primary purpose of a drug roadblock is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, it is unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court has sanctioned roadblocks held to seek information and locate witnesses to a crime as being constitutional. Illinois v Lidster held that an Illinois roadblock did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure.

The roadblock challenged in the Lidster case was deemed reasonable because it advanced a grave public interest and only minimally interfered with Fourth Amendment rights. Police in this case were investigating a death by stopping drivers on the same stretch of road, at the same time that the accident occurred, asking motorists briefly whether they had witnessed the crime or had any information. Because the crime the officers were investigating was motorist-related, and the stop itself was brief, it was considered constitutional.

Some California DUI / DWI arrests that occur at roadblocks are valid, and some are not. A skilled California defense lawyer who focuses on drunk driving cases such as those at The Kavinoky Law Firm can determine whether the roadblock was properly conducted. If the roadblock wasn’t conducted lawfully, any evidence collected likely will be suppressed in court.

Convicted DUI / DWI drivers typically face traditional court punishment such as jail sentences, fines, and license suspensions. However, courts are increasingly seeking to address the underlying alcohol issues of drunk drivers through sentencing alternatives. One available alternative is participation in a Victim Impact Program offered by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD).

The MADD Victim Impact Program consists of regular meetings between convicted DUI offenders and individuals whose lives have been affected by drunk drivers. Sentencing alternatives such as the MADD Victim Impact Program are designed to help, rather than punish, DUI offenders. MADD members communicate the impact drunk driving has had on their lives with the goal of educating drunk drivers of the effects of their actions on others.

The meetings are typically organized as panel discussions that feature three or more MADD members telling their stories. The discussions are often moderated by a police officer. When time permits, convicted drunk drivers may also share their stories.

Participation in the MADD Victim Impact Program is typically set as a condition of probation. If the DUI offender fails to participate in the program, probation is violated, and the driver likely will go to jail.

Sentencing alternatives such as the MADD Victim Impact Program can be a viable alternative to a jail sentence for a convicted drunk driver. A qualified California DUI / DWI attorney can determine whether sentencing alternatives are available in individual cases.

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.