Drunk Driver Arrested with Three Times the Legal Limit and Five Children in the Car

Thursday, July 12th, 2018

A woman was arrested this week after she was caught driving with a blood alcohol content over three times the legal limit and with five children in the car.

Rhode Island State Police were notified by a staff member of the Lincoln Woods State Park about a woman who appeared to be drunk and preparing to drive away in a minivan with five children, ages ranging from seven months to ten years old.

When officers confronted Leah Beatriz Duran, 41, of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, she backed into one of the officer’s vehicles in an attempt to flee, according to police.

Once officers were able to stop Duran, they determined that her blood alcohol content was 0.279 and 0.277.

Duran was charged with drunk driving with a child under the age of 13, driving with a suspended or revoked license, driving without insurance, failure to carry a license, and failure to maintain reasonable and prudent speeds.

The children were turned over to relatives and Duran is due in court later this month where she will be facing up to a year in jail based on a new law passed by the Rhode Island legislature.

“Drunken or drugged driving becomes something much worse when a child is in the car,” said Rhode Island Senate Majority Whip Maryellen Goodwin, who sponsored the bill which increased penalties for DUI when children are in the vehicle. “Besides threatening his or her own safety and that of everyone else on the road, that driver is risking the life of a child for whom he or she is supposed to be responsible — a child who has no choice or control over their presence in that car. That’s a more serious crime that warrants stiffer penalties. Tougher sentences will send a strong message that makes people think twice about endangering kids in this way.”

While not the same as Rhode Island, California also treats DUI with children in the car very seriously. Not only is a person looking at the punishment under California’s DUI law, they are also looking at additional penalties under California Vehicle Code section 23572, also known as California’s DUI child endangerment enhancements.

Under California Vehicle Code section 23572, a first time DUI conviction where a minor under the age of 14 is in the car will bring an additional 48 hours in a county jail on top of any jail time the underlying DUI sentence might carry. A second time DUI conviction will bring an additional 10 days in jail. A third time will bring an additional 30 days in jail. A fourth will bring an additional 90 days. Furthermore, these penalties are to be served consecutively, not concurrently with the underlying DUI penalties.

The prosecutor need only prove that you were driving under the influence and that there was a minor child under the age of 14 in the car while you drove.

Share

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Blood Draw in DUI Cases Allowed

Thursday, July 5th, 2018

In 2016, the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before forcibly withdrawing blood from a suspected drunk driver.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said, “It is true that a blood test, unlike a breath test, may be administered to a person who is unconscious (perhaps as a result of a crash) or who is unable to do what is needed to take a breath test due to profound intoxication or injuries. But we have no reason to believe that such situations are common in drunk-driving arrests, and when they arise, the police may apply for a warrant if need be.”

Notwithstanding the precedent, the Wisconsin Supreme Court seems to think that it can continue to issue decisions that allow that law enforcement to withdraw an unconscious DUI suspect’s blood without a warrant in violation of both the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court. It did so again this week in the case of Gerald Mitchell.

“Nothing in the opinion indicates the Supreme Court considered how its analytical structure would apply in the context of an unconscious suspect arrested for OWI, and it would be too much like reading tea leaves to give any substantive weight to a statement that simply gives the Court’s reasons for not addressing the question we are deciding,” Wisconsin Justice Daniel Kelly wrote.

Mitchell was arrested back in 2013 on suspicion of driving under the influence, or “operating while intoxicated” as Wisconsin calls it. Mitchell passed out after he was arrested, but before he could give consent for officers to withdraw blood. While unconscious, an officer told Mitchell that he could refuse. Not surprisingly, Mitchell didn’t respond. The officer then directed hospital staff to withdraw Mitchell’s blood.

The blood sample indicated that Mitchell’s blood alcohol content was 0.22 percent, well above the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

Based on that information, Mitchell was convicted of driving under the influence.

Mitchell appealed arguing that the blood withdrawal was a violation of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. An appellate court sent the case to Wisconsin Supreme Court for clarification because the Wisconsin Supreme Court had previously decided that warrantless blood withdrawals were allowed in urgent situations where delay in obtaining consent could lead to the loss of evidence, namely the dissipation of alcohol in the driver’s blood.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Mitchell’s case justified the holding by citing Wisconsin’s Implied Consent law stating that drivers automatically consent to blood withdrawals when they have a driver’s license.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Patience Roggensack said, “Through drinking to the point of unconsciousness, Mitchell forfeited all opportunity…to withdraw his consent previously given.”

Justice Roggensack went on to cite the legislature’s efforts at stamping out drunk driving to justify the court’s position.

“Just as Wisconsin drivers consent to the above-listed obligations by their conduct of driving on Wisconsin’s roads, in the context of significant, well-publicized laws designed to curb drunken driving, they also consent to an evidentiary drawing of blood upon a showing of probable cause to believe that they operated vehicles while intoxicated,” she wrote.

However, this rationale goes against exactly what the United States Supreme Court said in 2016.

“It is one thing to approve implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply, but quire another for a State to insist upon an intrusive blood test and then to impose criminal penalties on refusal to submit,” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote. “There must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads.”

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented from Justice Roggensack arguing exactly what Supreme Court Justice Alito had enunciated two years ago.

“This language compels a single conclusion: law enforcement needed a warrant here,” she said.

Bradley said the majority was merely using Wisconsin’s implied consent law to overrule the guarantees of the Constitution.

“Under the lead opinion’s analysis, however, the opportunity to refuse an unconstitutional search is merely a matter of legislative grace. If the ability to withdraw consent is merely statutory, could the legislature remove the ability to withdraw consent entirely? For the Fourth Amendment to have any meaning, such a result cannot stand,” she wrote.

What’s the point of precedent if states continue to refuse following case law set by the highest court in this country, and refusing to follow it at the expense of constitutionally guaranteed rights?

Share

Man Arrested for DUI after Horse he was Riding Tramples Boy

Thursday, June 14th, 2018

A man riding his horse during the Colusa County Fair Parade in Colusa, California, last Friday was arrested on suspicion of felony California DUI after his horse trampled a boy.

Armando Martinez Ruiz, a participant in the parade, was thrown from his horse after the horse bucked. As the horse ran away and through a group of spectators lining the parade route, it trampled an eight-year-old boy breaking his leg.

Officers found the horse and Ruiz was arrested on suspicion of felony DUI.

“In California, the same laws apply when riding horses as driving cars,” the Colusa Police Department said on its Facebook page.

This incident comes only a few months after a man was caught riding his horse on the 91 freeway in my hometown of Long Beach.

In that case, California Highway Patrol responded to a report that a man, later identified as Luis Alfredo Perez, had ridden his horse eastbound onto the 91 freeway. Officers found Perez after he exited the freeway in Bellflower.

It was later determined that the Perez’s blood alcohol content was 0.21/0.19 percent, more than double the legal limit, and he was arrested on suspicion of DUI.

Following Perez’s arrest, CHP took to Twitter saying, “No, you may not ride your horse on the freeway, and certainly not while intoxicated.” It included a picture of horse whose name was Guera and who was later released to Perez’s mother.

The Colusa Police Department was not wrong when it said that the same laws apply to horse riders as they do with drivers of motor vehicles.

According to California Vehicle Code section 21050, “Every person riding or driving an animal upon a highway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division…”

Since California DUI laws apply to the rider of a horse on a road, Perez was charged with a run-of-the-mill DUI. He faced fines between $390 and $1,000, three to five years of summary probation, a DUI program of up to nine months, and up to six months in county jail.

Ruiz, on the other hand, is facing felony DUI charges because someone was injured. Depending on the severity of the injury, someone can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony when their impaired driving injures someone other than the driver. And because Ruiz is being accused of felony DUI, he faces up to four years in prison, an additional (and consecutive) three to six years because broken bones can be considered “great bodily injury,” a “strike” under California’s Three Strikes Law, a fine between $1,015 and $5,000, and an 18 or 30 month DUI program.

I’ll leave you with a poem written by a dissenting Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge in a Pennsylvania case which held that a horse is not a vehicle for purposes of driving under the influence.

“A horse is a horse, of course, of course, but the Vehicle Code does not divorce its application from, perforce, a steed as my colleagues said. ‘It’s not vague,’ I’ll say until I’m hoarse, and whether a car, a truck or horse, this law applies with equal force, and I’d reverse instead.”

Share

What Happens When a Person Under the Age of 21 Gets a DUI?

Friday, May 25th, 2018

I am currently in the midst of a California DUI case where my client was under the age of 21 at the time of their arrest. At the beginning of their case, my client asked me what could happen to him. Unfortunately, it’s a common question as many people who are not legally allowed to drink are caught driving with alcohol in their systems.

As most of us know, the age at which someone is legally allowed to have alcohol is 21-years-old. Although the age of majority is 18, for purposes of this article, I’ll refer to a person under the age of 21 as a “minor.”

Under California Vehicle Code section 23136, otherwise known as California’s “Zero Tolerance” law, it is illegal for a minor to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.01 percent or more in their system. It does not matter whether the alcohol in the minor’s system came from an alcoholic beverage or some other source like medicine. Nor does it matter whether the minor was “under the influence.” The minor cannot have any alcohol in their system while driving. Fortunately, however, a violation of Vehicle Code 23136 is non-criminal and only results in a one-year suspension of driving privileges through the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Although not a criminal matter, a minor facing a suspension under California Vehicle Code section 23136 may still want to hire an attorney to fight the DMV suspension. In the event that a suspension cannot be avoided, the attorney can assist the minor obtain a “restricted license” to allow them to go to and from essential locations such as work, school, and the doctor’s office.

If, however, a minor is caught driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.05 percent or higher, they can be charged with an infraction under Vehicle Code section 23140. The penalty if someone is convicted of a violation of section 23140 is a one-year suspension of driving privileges, a fine of $100, and, if the person is over the age of 18, a mandatory alcohol education program of three months of more.

In addition to fighting the license suspension, as was the case with a violation of California’s Zero Tolerance law, a lawyer can help the minor fight the infraction under section 23140 using the same arguments commonly used in an adult DUI case.

If the minor is either under the influence of alcohol or caught driving with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol content or more in their system, a prosecutor can charge the minor with the standard DUI charges under California Vehicle Code sections 23152(a) and 23152(b) – misdemeanor driving under the influence and misdemeanor driving with a BAC of 0.08 percent, respectively.

A person, including a minor, is under the influence of alcohol if their physical or mental abilities are impaired to such a degree that they no longer have the ability to drive with the caution characteristics of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances.

In addition to being charged with driving while under the influence, a minor can also be charged with driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more.

The penalties for either standard DUI offenses under sections 23152(a) or 23152(b) include a criminal misdemeanor conviction (which remains on a person’s criminal record), suspension of driving privileges, three to five years of summary (informal) probation, a fine between $390 and $1,000, an alcohol education program of three, six, or nine months, up to six months in jail. The penalties can also include non-mandatory conditions such as a Mothers Against Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel, a hospital and morgue program, or AA meetings.

It shouldn’t take me to tell you that if anyone, including a minor, is charged with the standard DUI offenses under Vehicle Codes 23152(a) and 23152(b), they should seek the assistance of a skilled California DUI attorney. There is too much as stake not to.

Share

Bartender Charged for Over-Serving Customer who Later Killed Someone While Driving Drunk

Thursday, May 17th, 2018

Houston police yesterday arrested Natalia Ortiz at El Muelle Seafood restaurant where she works as a bartender. Almost exactly two years ago, one of Ortiz’s customers left the restaurant under the influence of alcohol and crashed into another vehicle killing one of the occupants.

You might be asking why Ortiz is being arrested and charged for something her customer did. Well, it was later determined that Ortiz served the patron, Edin Palacios, a whopping eleven beers that night before he got behind the wheel.

After Palacios left the restaurant, a Houston police officer attempted to pull him over. Palacios attempted to flee from the officer, ran a red light, and collided with a Dodge Charger. 18-year-old Jocelynn Valero, an occupant of the Dodge Charger was killed on the scene. The other occupant survived, but suffered a broken pelvis, a lacerated liver, and other significant injuries. Valero and the other occupant, her date, we’re driving home from their high school prom.

Prosecutors later determined that Palacios’s blood alcohol content was 0.18 percent.

According to Ortiz’s charging documents, a review of the restaurant’s surveillance video showed Palacios was “obviously intoxicated,” and who “was observed having difficulty in balance and coordination, dropping items from his hand…[and] nearly stumbles while walking.”

The documents went on to say, “This behavior was exhibited in front of [Ortiz] as she knowingly and intentionally continued to serve and deliver beer to the intoxicated subject.”

In 2016, Houston saw 89 fatal DUI crashes, the most in the state of Texas according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. Valero’s death was one of 3,776 DUI-related fatalities in the state of Texas as a whole that year.

As a result of these unfortunate statistics, local prosecutors stepped up efforts to enforce laws prohibiting the over-serving of alcohol to obviously intoxicated bar and restaurant patrons.

“We’re not going after servers or bars that are conducting business legally, we’re going after people whose actions are criminal and negligent,” said Sean Teare, the prosecutor in charge of the Harris County District Attorney’s Vehicular Crimes Division. “When those actions result in the tragedies every day that we deal with on these roads, we’re going to come after them.”

Palacios was charged and convicted of felony murder. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison. Ortiz, on the other hand, has been charged with serving a drunk, a misdemeanor. We’ll be keeping our eyes on how her case plays out.

California has a law similar that which allowed the prosecutors in Ortiz’s case to charge her for over-serving Palacios.

According to California Business and Professions Code section 25602(a), “Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Share