California Senate Committee Passes IID Law

Monday, April 4th, 2016

A couple of posts ago, I wrote about whether a person who has been convicted of a California DUI will be required to install and maintain an ignition interlock device. 

Currently, ignition interlock devices are only required by the DMV for people convicted of a California DUI in four counties as part of a pilot program: Alameda, Los Angeles, Tulare and Sacramento. Otherwise, the requirement that a person install an ignition interlock device is dependent upon whether a judge orders it as a condition of probation.

Last year, Senate Bill 61 extended the pilot program, which was set to end January 1, 2016, to July 1, 2017.

July 1, 2017, however, was too long for Senator Jerry Hill.

Hill authored Senate Bill 1046 which, if passed, would require people convicted of a DUI to install an ignition interlock device in their vehicle throughout California.

The bill took a big step into becoming law this past week when the California Senate Public Safety Committee voted 7-0 in favor of passing the bill. Now that the California Senate Committee has unanimously voted for the bill, it will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Not surprisingly Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) fully backed the proposed bill.

“Senator Hill has shown extraordinary leadership on drunk driving prevention, and we are extremely grateful to the committee for agreeing that ignition interlocks do save lives,” said Mary Klotzbach, a MADD National Board member and whose 22-year-old son, Matt, was killed by a drunk driver.

This past February, MADD released its own Ignition Interlock Report, which reportedly showed the deterrent effect that ignition interlock devices had on repeat drunk driving. According to their report, ignition interlock devices prevented 1.77 million drunk driving attempts where the would-be driver’s blood alcohol content was 0.08 percent or more. The report also alleges that ignition interlock devices prevented more than 124,000 drunk driving attempts.

“Today, the Senate Public Safety Committee voted to protect all Californians from the completely preventable, violent crime of drunk driving,” said Klotzbach. When I buried Matt, I buried a piece of my heart. Now I want make sure no other parent, child, brother, or sister ever has to endure this kind of heartache.”

The mandatory installation of ignition interlock devices will add to an already long list of mandatory conditions that a person convicted of a California DUI must complete. What’s more, in addition to the other thousands of dollars associated with a California DUI conviction, people required to install the ignition interlock device will have to pay between $50 and $100 per month to have the device installed and maintained.

Share

Increased Penalties for a High BAC

Monday, October 26th, 2015

When it comes to a California DUI, sentence there is a difference between driving drunk and driving really drunk.

It is not uncommon for a person to be caught driving drunk with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.15 percent. Unfortunately, it is also not uncommon for a person to be caught driving drunk with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.20 percent.

When this happens, in addition to being charged with the normal California DUI charges under California Vehicle Code section 23152 (a) and 23152(b), the prosecutor will also include what is known as a “special allegation” in the complaint. As a result of the “special allegation,” the person arrested for a California DUI is now actually facing increased penalties.

California Vehicle Code section 23578 sets forth the special allegation when a person’s blood alcohol content is 0.15 to 0.19 percent.

“In addition to any other provision of this code, if a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, the court shall consider a concentration of alcohol in the person’s blood of 0.15 percent or more, by weight, or the refusal of the person to take a chemical test, as a special factor that may justify enhancing the penalties in sentencing, in determining whether to grant probation, and, if probation is granted, in determining additional or enhanced terms and conditions of probation.”

In my experience, there are a number of common enhanced penalties that a prosecutor seeks when there is a special allegation that a person’s BAC was 0.15 or more. Those enhancements include, but are not limited to, a longer DUI program, AA meetings as a condition of probation, AA meetings as a condition of being released on their own recognizance pending the outcome of their case, MADD’s Victim Impact Panel, and/or a Hospital and Morgue Program.

When a person’s blood alcohol content is 0.20 percent or more, California Vehicle Code section 23538(b)(2) provides:

“The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol concentration was 0.20 percent (.20%) or more, by weight, or who refused to take a chemical test, to participate for at least nine (9) months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 60 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.”

Although section 23538(b)(2) specifically mentions a 9-month DUI program (called AB1353), there’s a good chance that the prosecutor will be pushing for an 18-month program (called SB38). The longer DUI program would be in addition to any of the other increased penalties I mentioned above.

When a California DUI case includes special allegations such as these, it is important and especially advantageous to the DUI-arrestee that an experienced California DUI attorney not only fight the underlying DUI charges, but the special allegations as well.  

 

 

Share

Traveling to Canada after a California DUI Conviction

Monday, July 6th, 2015

I’ve recently represented several people in California DUI cases who, after having been convicted, needed to travel to Canada. They were all surprised to learn that traveling to visit our neighbors to the north after a California DUI conviction was not as easy as they thought.

Canada considers driving under the influence as a very serious crime, so much so in fact, that they consider it an “indictable offense.” This is the functional equivalent to a felony under California law. Unlike California where a DUI is, for the most part, considered a misdemeanor for a first, second and third offense and punishable up to a year in jail, as an indictable offense in Canada, a DUI is punishable up to five years in jail.

Because all DUIs are, for all intents and purposes, considered felonies, anybody convicted of a DUI or even a wet reckless is excludable from entry into Canada under their Immigration Act.

Not all hope is lost. There are several exceptions where Canadian law allows a non-Canadian entry into the country despite a California DUI conviction.

The first exception is to be “deemed rehabilitated.” To be deemed rehabilitated, the maximum term of imprisonment for the DUI conviction was less than 10 years, the sentence for the California DUI conviction was completed at least 10 years ago, and no other indictable offenses were committed during those 10 years. If someone meets these criteria, they do not need to do anything further to gain entry into Canada, although it would be a good idea to have proof of this when trying to cross the border.

The second way to gain entry into Canada notwithstanding a California DUI conviction is “individual rehabilitation,” otherwise known as “rehabilitation by application.” The first requirement is that at least five years must have passed since the completion of the sentence for a California DUI conviction. It gets tricky however in trying to calculate the five-year wait period. The five-year wait period can be calculated in the following ways: 1.) five years from the date of sentencing if given a suspended sentence; 2.) five years from the date a fine was paid if given a suspended sentence and a fine; 3.) five years from the end of a prison term with no parole; 4.) five years from the end of parole or probation if sentenced to either; or 5.) five years from the end of a driver’s license suspension.

If someone meets the criteria needed for individual rehabilitation, they will need to fill out an application and submit it to a Canadian visa office located in the U.S. The application requires the applicant to explain why they are rehabilitated. The submission of the application for individual rehabilitation also requires a non-refundable application fee.

Another option to enter Canada even if someone has a California DUI conviction on their record is to obtain an expungement of the conviction. An expungement is the equivalent to a Canadian “record suspension.” Under Canadian law, a person cannot be denied entry for a DUI conviction where a record suspension has been issued for that conviction. To be eligible for an expungement of a California DUI conviction, a person must have successfully completed probation and must not have any criminal actions pending against them including criminal charges, probation on another case, or serving a sentence for another case.

While an expungement is the most common and efficient way to obtain entry into Canada, it would be wise to consult an immigration attorney to ensure that the expungement will meet the requirements of a “record suspension.”

The last way to enter Canada with a California DUI conviction on the record is to apply for a “temporary resident permit.” A temporary resident permit may be given when an applicant must enter Canada for a specific purpose and only for a limited period of time. The applicant must also so that the need to enter Canada must outweigh any risk to Canadian public safety. Like individual rehabilitation, an applicant must pay a non-refundable application fee.

Anyone wishing to enter Canada following a California DUI conviction through any of the abovementioned avenues should consult with both a criminal defense attorney as well as an immigration attorney.

Share

Can You Get a California DUI While Parked?

Monday, May 4th, 2015

The first word in the acronym DUI is “drive,” yet many people believe that a person can get a California DUI even if they didn’t drive a vehicle. While that may be the case in other states, in California a prosecutor needs to prove that a person actually drove a vehicle while intoxicated.

California Vehicle Code section 23152 (a) and (b) reads, “It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.”

So can a person be arrested and subsequently convicted if police find them drunk and passed out in a parked car?

In the 1991 case of Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Supreme Court held that the word “drive” for purposes of California’s DUI law required evidence of a defendant’s volitional movement of a vehicle. With his holding, the California Supreme Court upheld “decades of case law” on the issue.

In 1985, it was held in the case of People v. Wilson that “[w]ith regard to the offence of driving under the influence…a ‘slight movement’ of the vehicle in the officer’s presence has been a determinative factor in concluding whether or not a defendant was ‘driving’ in the presence of the officer.”

So does that mean that the officer must witness a “slight movement” of the vehicle? No.

The court in Wilson went on to say, “On the other hand, where the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgement is in question, as contrasted with the validity of a defendant’s arrest, it is clear that the existence of evidence establishing a ‘slight movement’ of the vehicle does not present a problem. In the absence of such direct evidence of ‘driving’ the element of ‘driving’ may nonetheless be established at trial through circumstantial evidence…”

Simply put, a prosecutor needs to prove that a DUI suspect, at the very least, caused a vehicle to slightly move. The easiest way to prove that the DUI suspect was driving is if an officer observes a “slight movement” of the vehicle. However, if an officer does not observe a “slight movement,” a prosecutor can still prove that a person drove a vehicle with circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence that has been used to prove that a person drove for purposes of a California DUI include, but not limited to, officers finding the vehicle at or close to an accident site or finding the vehicle in the middle of the road.

California’s DUI law is different than several other states which only require “dominion and control” over a vehicle. In those states, DUI suspects can be charged and convicted if they are found intoxicated while having “dominion and control” over a vehicle with the potential to drive it.

So to answer our initial question of whether a person can arrested and subsequently convicted of a California DUI if they’re found drunk and passed out in a parked car, the answer is it depends. It depends on whether the prosecutor can prove that the person actually drove the vehicle.

Share

California Proposes New Law to Allow Roadside Marijuana Test

Monday, April 27th, 2015

Assembly Bill 1356 has made its way to Capitol Hill and, if passed, would allow law enforcement to use a device similar to a breathalyzer that could detect the presence of marijuana and a number of other drugs in a driver’s system in a matter of minutes.

“It’s very clear that the usage of marijuana is becoming more and more common,” said Assemblyman Tom Lackey from Palmdale, California, who proposed the law.

The law would expand California’s current implied consent law to “provide that a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or oral fluids for the purpose of determining the drug content of his or her blood or oral fluids.”

Currently, if law enforcement want to test for the presence of drugs in a driver’s system following the lawful arrest of that driver, they need to withdraw blood which could take hours.

According to CBS San Francisco, officers would be able to use a portable drug detection device called Alere™ DDS®2 that would allow law enforcement to perform a test on drivers’ oral fluids gathered from the gum line and cheeks. The swabbed fluid samples could provide results within five minutes according to the device’s developers.

"We’d be testing for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamines and benzodiazepine," said Fred Delfino, spokesperson for Alere DDS 2, the company behind the new device.

You may recall from my previous posts that the Los Angeles Police Department had been given a federal grant to test these devices.

“The number of drugged drivers is increasing rapidly, and those of us in law enforcement simply do not have the tools necessary to determine the level of impairment on anything other than alcohol,” said Ron Lawrence, chief of police for Rocklin. “If the legalization of marijuana is in our future, we in California law enforcement need to be prepared to deal with the roadways and safety precautions of tomorrow."

The problem is that the device does not test for impairment. It only tests for the presence of the drugs.

It has yet to be determined what amount of drugs found in a person’s system will constitute impairment. According to Lackey, that part of the bill has not yet been worked out.

There is an established correlation between blood alcohol content, specifically the legal limit of 0.08 percent, and alcohol impairment. Unlike alcohol, however, there is no such correlation between the presence of drugs and impairment.

"I think that people want to have a clear-cut, black-and-white solution," says Mason Tvert, the communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalization group. "They want a specific number that we can use to just say that this person is impaired or not. Unfortunately, it’s a little more of a gray area than that."

Unfortunately, Tvert is correct and that gray area can lead to sober drivers getting arrested for DUI of marijuana.

Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC is the active component of marijuana. Unlike alcohol which dissipates after several hours, THC can stay in a person’s system for weeks at a time and well after the person has smoked.

Simply put, the mere presence of THC in a person does not necessarily mean that the person is impaired and incapable of safely operating a vehicle and the new device, if AB1356 passes, could be used to prosecute sober drivers.

Share