Articles Posted in DUI

Plea bargaining is simply a negotiation between your attorney and the prosecutor to dismiss or reduce the charges that may be pending against you. These type of negotiations can also be very effective at obtaining dismissals, reductions in penalties like eliminating jail time, in exchange for community service. For example, in a recent DUI case although the prosecutor was demanding jail time, we were able to persuade the Judge to allow our client to be placed on electronic monitoring in lieu of serving time in a jail cell.

In addition, when there are aggravating circumstances presence, the terms that the prosecutor, Judge or legislature dictates, can still be modified by the negotiation and skill of an experienced DUI lawyer to trade-off harsh consequences.

Many new clients, and those potential clients seeking advice on how our firm can assist them view DUI penalties as if they were a specific, set in stone formula, with no room for alteration or modification. People not familiar with this area of the law are very surprised to find out that every legal offense from a DUI case to a manslaughter offense are quoted in ranges, rather than specific finite penalties.

If a person is charged with a DUI, and they refused to take a breath or blood test at the time of the arrest, they may face additional consequences if convicted. When a driver is issued a California license, they give implied consent to submit for a blood alcohol test if asked to do so by officers. When a person refuses to do so, they are violating this previously given consent, and the penalties are taken seriously by the DMV and the government.

Many of our clients do not explicitly refuse to take a blood or breath test, but are unable to do so for various reasons. For example, many people who are overwhelmed and stressed out find it difficult to calmly breathe into a breathalyzer to get an accurate result. Some have asthma and are unable to properly breathe into the machine. Those that are unable to take the breath test and provide usable results, must take the blood test as an alternative. But many times, the officials administering the blood test are unable to find a vein or collect a sample large enough. The driver may also have a fear of needles and cannot submit to the blood these. As a result, the person is unable to take the blood test or the breath test, but have cooperated and provided legitimate attempts to do so.

For example, say Sally is stopped for a DUI and is asked to take a BAC test. She has asthma and does not have her inhaler with her. She, nevertheless, tries to breathe into the machine in order to provide a sample but officers tell her that none of the attempts were valid. She is then asked to take a blood test since the breath test was not valid. They try to take her blood but cannot find a vein and after several attempts, fail at gathering a sample. Sally followed directions and tried to aid the officers in gathering a sample to the best of her ability, but because of uncontrollable factors she was unable to do so.

The proceedings at a Los Angeles DMV hearing are very different from those in Criminal Court. The DMV hearing may take in person, or at the request of a Los Angeles Criminal Defense lawyer, over the telephone. Telephonic hearings are often requested by the attorney so that they can help coach you with the testimony. The DMV hearing officer will call you the law office and the attorney and client will be present and listening over speaker phone. All dialogue is on the record and will be conducted with the professionalism and legal guidelines as any proceeding, but is just a lot more convenient for all parties involved.

The officer will call at a scheduled time and will confirm the name of the attorney and the client. The client is identified by providing full name, birth date and address. The attorney will be identified by providing a name, and address. The officer will introduce the different exhibits as evidence, one of which will be the arrest report including the officer’s statements. The issues will be stated and the officer will ask which the attorney stipulates to, and which he or she is contesting.

Once all issues have been stated and it has been entered on the record what is being contested the DMV hearing officer will swear in the client and any other witnesses that are going to testify on the record. The attorney will then ask the client questions, followed by any questions the officer may have.s

During a DMV Hearing the officer will ask questions and review the arrest report to determine several issues and make a decision regarding the restriction or suspension of your driver’s license based on their findings. All questions asked and evidence gathered will be directed towards determining answers and argument centered around the issues that must be determined.

At the hearing the DMV officer must first determine whether the arresting officer had valid probable cause to stop the driver. The officer may not stop any driver without a valid reason to do so. Majority of times the driver is stopped for a violation of the California Vehicle Code. This could be running a red light, speeding, an illegal u-turn, or similar offenses. If a person violates the vehicle code, the officer has a duty to stop the driver and cite them for the violation. If during the stop the officer believes the person may be intoxicated, they have the right to conduct a sobriety test to determine if they could possibly be guilty of a DUI.

An officer also has probable cause when they check up on a person who had gotten into an accident or is pulled over at the side of the road. When a person is pulled over or has just gotten into an accident, the officer must conduct a welfare check to determine whether the person is ok or if they need assistance. At the time of the check the officer may determine the person is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and give the person a sobriety test.

When a person has been charged and arrested for a Southern California Driving under the Influence charge they must appear before a criminal court Judge as well as a DMV hearing officer. The criminal court will determine if they are guilty of a DUI and will dismiss or sentence accordingly. The DMV hearing officer will hear the facts of the case and if found guilty will take actions against the person’s driver’s license.

Each person has the right to a criminal defense lawyer to represent them in both the criminal court proceedings and the DMV hearing. Hiring an attorney to represent the driver during the DMV hearing not only ensures that the person is properly prepared during the testimony, but also that their rights are protected. A powerful argument made during the DMV hearing can help prevent the California driver’s license suspension for an extensive amount of time, and in certain situations may allow them to retain the use of their license on a restricted basis.

During a DMV hearing the officer will present the arresting officer’s report and will give the person charged an opportunity to present their side of the case on the record. The driver has the burden of proving that they were not intoxicated while driving. They must prove their case through strategic testimony.

The burden of proof in a criminal case refers to whether the government (Department of Motor Vehicles or the Prosecutor) or the driver has to prove the person being charged meets the standard required to be found guilty of the offense.

During a DUI case in front of the Criminal Judge, the Prosecution has the burden to prove that the driver is guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs beyond a reasonable doubt. What this means is that the government attorney must demonstrate to the court that there is enough evidence that demonstrates the person was guilty of a DUI beyond the doubt of a reasonable person. If there is any kind of doubt upon any part of the evidence, or the evidence as a whole, the burden has not been met. The person being charged has no obligation to prove that they were not intoxicated and driving. They have the right to defend themselves against accusations made or presented by the government, but do not have the burden of disproving intoxication while driving. If the government cannot present enough evidence as to alleviate any reasonable doubt, then they have not met their burden and the driver is not guilty of a DUI.

Assuming as an example, a person is being charged with a DUI in front of a criminal Judge. Prosecution presents a Blood Alcohol Reading and the officer’s statements as evidence. However, the officer has been cited several times previously for fabricating reports and there is a conflict between his story and the driver’s. There was a second car on scene that witnessed the whole event and corroborates the driver’s story causing further doubt on the officer’s report. Additionally, the blood alcohol machine records show that the machine has not been calibrated or sent for proper maintenance in a few years resulting in a margin of error on readings.sDue to the discrepancies in the officer’s report and the possible erroneous reading on the breathalyzer the prosecutor has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused driver has no obligation to show through evidence that he was not intoxicated, the case will be dismissed.

California state law prohibits anyone from driving a motor vehicle when your driving ability is impaired under section 23152 (a) of the vehicle code. Drivers are also prohibited under section 23152 (b) of the vehicle code to drive a motor vehicle when their blood alcohol level is a .08% or more.

Whether you take a breath test or blood test after being stopped and arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, the seriousness of your case relies in great part on the readings obtained at the time that you were stopped and tested.

A criminal prosecution for this charge carries serious consequences including probation, fines in excess of $1500, required attendance at a lenghly alcohol program, and a range of other consequences.

Many different factors come together to affect the rate of alcohol absorption, how quickly it is distributed into your blood stream and how quickly it is eliminated from your body.

Alcohol absorption is affected by the food you have ingested and the type of drink. When food is eaten along with alcohol, the alcohol absorption is a lot slower and the blood alcohol concentration peak (the point of greatest intoxication) is generally achieved anywhere between an hour to six. For people who haven’t had as much to eat, and are not eating along with their alcohol, the blood alcohol concentration peak is reached faster, generally in half an hour to two. The type of food ingested; fat, proteins or carbohydrates may have an effect on the quickness of absorption, but there is no concrete evidence. There is proof however, that the bigger the meal, and the closer in time to drinking that it is eaten, there is a slowing effect on alcohol absorption.

The stronger a drink is, the faster it will be absorbed by the body. Drinks that are generally between 10% and 30% of alcohol concentration will be most rapidly absorbed. Drinks that are less than 10% will take longer to be absorbed by the body.

Client always asked me at our first consultation, whether or not it is possible to get the their recent DUI case dismissed. I provide each client with an honest answer, that is, it depends. The law requires that for a driver to be convicted of a driving under the influence charge, certain legal requirements must be properly proven.

Regardless of a drivers blood alcohol level at the time that they were stopped on suspicion of driving under the influence, the police must legally justify a traffic stop by specifically identifying the vehicle code violation committed by the driver which gives rise to a lawful stop. This critical foundation is known as the principle of probable cause. Essentially, every DUI stop is required to have sufficient probable cause, or legal reason.

The absence of probable cause requires dismissals are granted, when it is determined by a prosecutor, judge, or jury that the officer lacked probable cause to justify a stop. Our firm recently represented a client who was stopped by the police for driving without his rear license plate illuminated. The driver was arrested for DUI because he had a blood alcohol reading of .18, over two times the legal limit. This case was ultimately dismissed on a defense motion when the driver and two passengers contested the police allegation regarding the light.sThe judge determined that the officer lacked probable cause to stop the driver because he believed that there was in fact a working license plate light as testified by the driver and his witness/passengers.

Contact Information