Friday, October 31, 2008

Monster California DUI / Drunk Driving enforcement Halloween night

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net and www.SanDiegoduilawyer.com warn of intense DUI enforcement tonight, throughout the state:

Oct. 31, 2008
Sacramento police are going to be on the lookout for drunken drivers in downtown Sacramento tonight.

The police will be conducting its first saturation patrol in the downtown area from 10 p.m. tonight to 4 a.m. Saturday, according to a police news release.

The department holds saturation patrols and DUI checkpoints periodically throughout the city, said Officer Michelle Lazark.

Officers will be looking for drunken or drug-impaired drivers and checking driver's licenses, she said.

About 6 additional officers will work the saturation patrols tonight, Lazark said.

The saturation patrol is funded through a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

DUI campaign expanding – Additional Officers on patrol this weekend

Riverside, California – This Friday, All Hollows Eve, the community’s youngsters will take to the streets dressed in cute, funny and often times scary costumes, racing from home to home screaming “trick or treat!” Riverside Police Department reminds everyone, commuting home or heading out for the evening, to stay alert and to reduce speeds in residential neighborhoods.

“Drivers must understand that young ones racing for Halloween treats are not likely to be paying attention to traffic,” said Riverside Chief of Police Russ Leach. “Drivers need to watch for children darting out from between parked cars and walking on roadways. Many children and youth wear costumes that make them hard to see. Parents must make sure their children can be seen after dark, and remind them to always look both ways before crossing the street and to use the crosswalks at intersections.”

Halloween falls on a Friday night this year and every community will see adults dressed in costume headed out to mark the occasion with friends and family. However, the most terrifying events this weekend come at the end of the night once the parties end. That’s when drunk or buzzed drivers take to the streets. Avoid the 30 Riverside County reminds everyone partying this Halloween to use a Designated Driver!

“If you are planning on celebrating this weekend our message is simple,” said Karen Haverkamp, Riverside County Avoid the 30 coordinator. “If you are caught driving impaired, you’re going to be arrested! You may have thought the haunted house was frightening – wait till you visit the jail.”

There is no treat once an officer knocks on your car door. When arrested, violators will face jail time, the loss of their driver’s license, higher insurance rates, attorney fees, time away from work, and dozens of other expenses.

Worse yet, there will be many families receiving the horrific news that a loved one has been badly hurt or killed at the hands of a drunk driver this Halloween weekend.

The Avoid the 30 – DUI Campaign will be deploying additional officers onto the streets Friday night to reduce the death and destruction caused by drinking drivers. “Drunk driving is the top priority for the police, CHP, and Sheriff deputies in Riverside County, but other motorists on the roads are one of the best weapons we have against drunk drivers,” said Haverkamp. “We’re asking the public to report drunk drivers by calling 911. Then, provide the location, direction of travel and a complete description of the vehicle. This will help to hunt them down and get them off the road.”

With millions of cell phones on California roadways your chances of getting busted have risen. Avoid the 30 will be out in force conducting DUI operations in the following communities: Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Riverside, Hemet, Palm Springs, and La Quinta. In addition, every officer working Friday night will pay special attention towards drunk driving.

Don’t take the chance. Remember, if you are caught over the limit, you will be under arrest.

The California Highway Patrol is warning motorists to avoid getting caught in a drunk-driving incident this Halloween weekend.

“Death is the most significant and obvious consequence of drunk driving,” a news release stated, and getting arrested for DUI can cost drunk drivers thousands of dollars in expenses, revocation of their driver’s license and possible jail time.

Pedestrian safety is another issue.

“Halloween is an exciting event for children, but streets are dark and traffic is heavy,” said Sgt. Hal Rosendahl of the Humboldt Area office. “While children are putting on their costumes, parents should remind them about basic pedestrian safety — stay with parents or a group, cross at the corner and check for traffic before crossing the street.”

Motorists should be aware of children running from house to house.

“The safest approach is for parents to accompany their children as they go from house to house,” Sgt. Rosendahl said.

The release recommended carrying a flashlight to illuminate the sidewalks and alert motorists. Parents also should take precautions to ensure costumes are safe and that their child’s vision is not obscured.

Motorists are advised to watch their speed, to always buckle up, and secure children in child safety seats.

Some excellent questions to begin asking when searching for a California DUI lawyer are:



What are his or her California DUI attorney's qualifications?



Is he or she a Specialist member of the California DUI Lawyers Association?



Is he or she a member of the National College for DUI Defense?



Whether or not you ultimately end up hiring a California DUI Specialist attorney, it is a smart idea to speak to a California DUI Specialist lawyer in this highly complex field.



You can read more -Why use San Diego County's Specialist in DUI and DMV Law http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html .


Or try a Free California DUI Evaluation at http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/survey.html .





San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended informed the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.


Click on below sites for more information or to contact a San Diego DUI Lawyer who can help:

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help

Thursday, October 30, 2008

California DUI & DMV Defense Lawyer information

California DUI & DMV Defense Lawyer information provided by a top San Diego California Drunk Driving Criminal Defense Attorney for those accused of a San Diego California DUI and needing to keep driving.



Hassle-free California DUI help for San Diego California DUI court and San Diego California DMV. Complete San Diego California DUI Help to save your California license or other state license.



San Diego DUI Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller is a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 24 years of experience. Known as the San Diego California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.



San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



Simply complete the Free San Diego California DUI Evaluation at http://www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey.html for your best San Diego California DUI Criminal Defense & DMV Defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege, as has been done for many good people who necessarily become San Diego California DUI Clients.






See below for a Criminal Defense DUI Lawyer in California who can assist you:

California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer


California DUI Criminal Defense


California DUI Criminal Defense Attorney


California DUI Criminal & DMV Defense Help

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Salinas California Police Department will be conducting a California DUI checkpoint tomorrow night

The Salinas California Police Department will be conducting a California DUI and drivers license checkpoint on Thursday evening at an undisclosed location in the city of Salinas.

According to California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net, the California drunk driving checkpoint is purposely conducted during the Halloween celebration period in an attempt to reduce the amount of drinking and driving associated with Halloween celebrations.

The California DUI and Drivers License Checkpoint is also aimed at educating the public about the dangers of drinking and driving and driving without a license.



San Diego California drunk driving criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association (formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.



FREE SAN DIEGO California DUI "EVALUATION FORM" href="http://www.sandiegodui.com">http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html



Quality San Diego California DMV - DUI legal representation: 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI
(1-800-843-5293)

Click on below sites for more information by a San Diego California DUI Lawyer:

California DUI Lawyer


California DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego California DUI Help





http://www.google.com


http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html


http://www.yahoo.com

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Be careful Halloween & no California DUI / drunk driving!

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com/duiblog and California Drunk Driving criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles warn of Halloween DUI precautions.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is warning motorists to avoid getting caught up in a California DUI / drunk driving nightmare this Halloween weekend.

When partying takes to the roadways, too often the result is tragic, say California DUI / drunk driving criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegodui.com.

Death is the most significant and obvious consequence of California DUI / drunk driving , but a host of other nightmares also can occur, according to California DUI / drunk driving criminal defense lawyers.

Getting arrested for California DUI / drunk driving can cost drunk drivers between thousands of dollars in expenses, revocation of their driver’s license and possible jail time.

If you will be driving on Halloween, make sure you and all your passengers are buckled up and that only non-drinking drivers get behind the wheel.

Another issue, as people prepare to turn the clocks back one hour for Daylight Saving Time on Sunday, Nov. 2, is pedestrian safety.

Halloween is an exciting event for children, but streets are dark and traffic is heavy. While children are putting on their costumes, parents should remind them about basic pedestrian safety – stay with parents or a group, cross at the corner and check for traffic before crossing the street.

Motorists also need to be aware of children running from house to house, California DUI / drunk driving lawyers remind.

The safest approach is for parents to accompany their children as they go from house to house, California DUI / drunk driving attorneys warn.

California DUI / drunk driving attorneys recommend folks to carry a flashlight to illuminate the sidewalks and alert motorists. Parents also should take precautions to ensure costumes are safe and that their child’s vision is not obscured.

This day can be a time of fun and fantasy for children. Don’t let it turn into a tragedy. Take safety along with you as you go from door to door, California DUI / drunk driving criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com emphasize.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Restitution case Bergin - California DUI victims can't get too greedy

California DUI lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com and www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net are often asked about restitution issues in San Diego California DUI cases.

Filed 10/27/08
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL JOHN BERGIN,

Defendant and Respondent.

B200999

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. SA053818)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Craig D. Karlan, Judge. Affirmed.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Patrick D. Moran, Phyllis Asayama and Cassandra Hart-Franklin, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Doherty & Catlow, John Doherty and Paul Sowa for Defendant and Respondent.






_______________________________________

SUMMARY
The People appeal from an order requiring Michael Bergin, as a condition of probation, to pay restitution to victim Jennifer Armstrong in the amount of $36,900.39 for medical expenses. The People contend the restitution amount should have been $138,667.03 (the amount billed by Armstrong’s medical providers) rather than $36,900.39 (the amount the medical providers accepted from Armstrong’s insurer as full payment for their services, plus the deductible paid by Armstrong). Finding no merit in the People’s contention, we affirm the restitution order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Bergin was charged in a felony complaint with violations of the Vehicle Code in connection with an incident that occurred on July 16, 2004. Bergin was turning left at the corner of Fountain Avenue and Crescent Heights Boulevard in Los Angeles, and his car struck pedestrian Jennifer Armstrong. Armstrong suffered injuries, including a fractured left knee requiring two surgeries. On March 10, 2005, Bergin entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more and causing injury to another person. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b).) He was convicted and placed on formal probation for 36 months. Conditions of probation included making restitution to Armstrong.
Twenty-two months later, on January 8, 2007, Armstrong filed a brief requesting restitution in the amount of $150,667.03, a sum which included $138,667.03 for medical expenses. Meanwhile, during the time between Bergin’s plea in 2005 and the restitution hearings in 2007, Armstrong brought a civil action against Bergin. She obtained a judgment in the sum of $91,262.02. Of that amount, $36,744.24 was for medical expenses. (The jury awarded $129,269.53 in economic damages for medical expenses, and the trial court reduced the amount to $36,744.24. The reduction was in accordance with Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635, 640 (Hanif) [an injured plaintiff may not recover from the tortfeasor more than the actual amount she paid, or for which she incurred liability, for medical services].)
A restitution hearing was held on February 9, 2007, at which the trial court expressed its tentative intention to “follow the civil judgment,” but gave the parties an opportunity to brief the point. After hearing arguments at two further hearings, the trial court issued an order requiring Bergin to pay restitution in the sum of $36,900.39 for medical expenses. While recognizing it could disregard the civil court judgment, the court observed:

“Why shouldn’t I follow it so that we can have consistent decisions, consistent verdicts? This case realistically we should have had a restitution hearing two years ago. [¶] . . . [¶] So part of the problem is that everybody sat on their rights waiting on the civil court to take action [and] when that outcome wasn’t satisfactory[,] [i]t’s coming back here. That doesn’t seem to me to be a good solution either. So that’s why it seems to me – we want Ms. Armstrong to be whole, and it seems to me she should be made whole from the standpoint of economic losses if I make the order that I’m going to make. I don’t see how she would not be 100 percent compensated.”

The People filed a timely appeal from the trial court’s order.
DISCUSSION
The People contend the trial court should have set restitution in the amount billed by Armstrong’s medical providers. According to the People, the plain language of the restitution statute, as interpreted in People v. Birkett (1999) 21 Cal.4th 226 (Birkett) and further explained in People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266 (Hove), precludes the court from ordering “less than full restitution merely because the victim’s insurer has adjusted downward the medical costs it would pay.” But the People’s argument assumes the very point at issue: whether the court ordered “less than full restitution” when it ordered Bergin to pay Armstrong the amount her insurers actually paid for medical expenses, rather than the amount “actually incurred by Armstrong’s medical providers.” We conclude the trial court fully complied with the statute’s mandate to “order full restitution” of Armstrong’s “economic loss as a result of [Bergin’s] conduct . . . .” (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f) .)
Penal Code section 1202.4 contains an express statement of the Legislature’s intent: “that a victim of crime who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime.”[1] (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) The restitution order “shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct . . . .” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).) Only a victim is entitled to restitution; the victim’s insurer cannot obtain restitution from a criminal defendant. (Birkett, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 229 [insurers do not become direct victims by reimbursing crime losses under the terms of their policies; victim has the right to restitution based on the full amount of her losses “without regard to full or partial recoupments from other sources”].)
In our view, the only question presented by this case is whether Armstrong “incur[red] any economic loss” for medical expenses beyond the $36,900.39 the trial court ordered Bergin to pay her. If she did, then the trial court abused its discretion in failing to comply with the statutory mandate to fully reimburse her for economic losses. But we can detect no basis for concluding that Armstrong incurred any other economic loss beyond that identified in the trial court’s order. The People say Bergin must pay restitution in the amount “actually incurred by Armstrong’s medical providers,” but of course the statute says nothing of the sort. Indeed, Armstrong’s medical providers agreed with Blue Cross to accept the amounts Blue Cross paid on Armstrong’s behalf; neither Armstrong nor her insurer expended more than the trial court ordered to be paid to Armstrong as restitution.[2]
The People nonetheless insist that the trial court was required to order restitution in the amount billed by Armstrong’s medical providers, even though neither Armstrong nor her insurers paid that amount. The People rely on Hove, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, where the court upheld a restitution order requiring the defendant to pay the victim “the full amount of the losses caused by his crime,” even though the victim had no actual economic losses, because all his medical expenses were paid by Medi-Cal or Medicare benefits. (Id. at p. 1272.) Further, the trial court “used the claims billed amount ($286,565.92) rather than the total amounts which had actually been paid by the date of the computer run ($89,054.34).” (Id. at p. 1274.)
Hove does not assist the People. First, Hove is merely an application of the principle stated in Birkett: “the immediate victim of the probationer’s crime was entitled to receive restitution ‘directly’ from the probationer for the full amount of the loss caused by the probationer’s criminal conduct,” and “such reparation should go entirely to the individual or entity the offender had directly wronged, regardless of that victim’s reimbursement from other sources.” (Birkett, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 245, 246, italics omitted.) Second, the trial court had good reasons for ordering restitution in the amount of the “claims billed,” rather than the amount actually paid by Medi-Cal or Medicare as of the date of the computer report presented to the trial court. The victim in Hove was totally incapacitated and in a vegetative state as a result of the defendant’s crime, and would always require long-term care in a subacute nursing facility. (Hove, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 1268.) The trial court, in ordering restitution in the higher amount (claims billed instead of amount paid), noted that “there will be continuing care costs beyond the date of the computer run. Obviously, if [the victim] remains in a vegetative state the rest of his life, as expected, the costs caused by defendant’s conduct will far exceed the amount of the restitution actually ordered.” (Id. at pp. 1274-1275.) The court of appeal accordingly found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining restitution on the basis of the claims amounts billed to Medi-Cal (id. at p. 1275) – a conclusion with which it is difficult to disagree. In any event, Hove does not support the proposition that a trial court must order restitution in amounts billed by medical providers, regardless of whether the victim or her insurers actually incurred, or might in future incur, those expenses.
The People also assert that it was error for the trial court to rely on Hanif – which holds that an injured plaintiff may not recover from a tortfeasor more than the actual amount of medical expenses she paid or for which she incurred liability – because Hanif was a civil case analyzing tort law. (Hanif, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 640.) But the civil or criminal nature of a case does not render the principles adduced in the case inapplicable in any other context. Indeed, the Supreme Court has analogized restitution in civil cases with restitution in criminal cases. (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 658 [the object of restitution is the same in the context of a criminal conviction as it is under unfair competition law, that is, to restore the economic status quo]; see also People v. Hamilton, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 944 [“[t]here is no reason why that same principle of tort law [the collateral source doctrine] should not apply to restitution for crime victims”].) Just so here: there is no reason why the Hanif principle – that “an award of damages for past medical expenses in excess of what the medical care and services actually cost constitutes overcompensation” (Hanif, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 641) – should not be applied in a criminal restitution case.
Finally, we observe that in analogous circumstances – a restitution order in a juvenile offender case – another court reached the same conclusion we do here. In In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010, the juvenile court ordered the minor to pay victim restitution for medical expenses based on the amount billed by the victim’s health care provider, rather than on the amount actually paid by Medi-Cal.[3] (Id. at p. 1013.) The court of appeal reversed the order, holding that, because the victim was only liable for the amount expended by Medi-Cal, “the juvenile court erred by ordering victim restitution for past medical expenses in excess of the actual amount expended or incurred.” (Id. at p. 1014, 1017 [restitution order must fully reimburse the victim for economic losses incurred as a result of the juvenile’s criminal conduct, without regard to potential reimbursement from a third party insurer, but the order is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall].)[4]
In sum, Penal Code section 1202.4 requires restitution “directly from [the] defendant” of “any economic loss” as a result of the defendant’s crime. (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) Restitution is to be without regard to the victim’s reimbursement from other sources. (Birkett, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 246.) The restitution ordered is to be “sufficient to fully reimburse the victim . . . for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct . . . .” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).) Neither Armstrong nor her insurers incurred any economic loss beyond the amount identified in the trial court’s restitution order. Like the trial court, we find it impossible to see any basis for concluding that Armstrong has not been “100 percent compensated” by payment of the amount specified in the trial court’s order.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION


COOPER, P. J.

We concur:


RUBIN, J.


FLIER, J.
[1] Further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise specified.
[2] The People repeatedly imply that amounts billed by medical providers constitute “the victim’s actual costs incurred . . . .” But “incur” means “to become liable or subject to” (Webster’s 9th New Collegiate Dict. (1989) p. 611), and there is no suggestion in the record that Armstrong was at any time liable for the amounts billed by her medical providers.
[3] The court applied Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6, “which is the parallel provision [to restitution requirements for adult offenders] applicable to juvenile offenders.” (In re Anthony M., supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016.) In like manner as Penal Code section 1202.4, Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 provides that it is the Legislature’s intent that a victim “who incurs any economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor,” and a restitution order “shall be of a dollar amount sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for all determined economic losses incurred as the result of the minor’s conduct . . . .” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subds. (a)(1) & (h).)
[4] The People say the rationale of In re Anthony M. is not applicable because the case involved Medi-Cal, not private insurance. While, by law, final payment by Medi-Cal to a medical provider constitutes payment in full, the People say there is no law precluding health care providers who accept private insurance from “collect[ing] any unpaid balance from a patient who recovers from a third-party criminal wrongdoer, depending upon their plan or policy provisions.” But the People point to no such “plan or policy provisions” in this case, and we therefore think it is safe to assume there are none; certainly none was presented to the trial court.

California Drunk Driving checkpoint results for Moreno Valley California

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com and California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney & www.SanDiegoDUI.com report the following information has been provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department:

The Moreno Valley Police Department has just completed another California Drunk Driving / DUI/CDL safety checkpoint. This operation ran from 3 p.m. through 9 p.m. on Friday. The California Drunk Driving checkpoint was located on Perris Boulevard north of the intersection at Santiago.

A total of 1,896 cars passed through the California Drunk Driving checkpoint. Sixty-two drivers were issued citations and 51 vehicles were impounded. The majority of these citations and impounds were for suspended or unlicensed drivers. A total of five field sobriety tests were conducted, and one driver was arrested for California Drunk Driving DUI.

California DUI Lawyer Center Blog: Before you Drive Drunk, DUI or DWI - Five Things to Consder

>California DUI Lawyer Center Blog: Before you Drive Drunk, DUI or DWI - Five Things to Consder

Sunday, October 26, 2008

All California licensed nurses to submit fingerprints

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com/duiblog and www.SanDiegoDUI.com reported this subject recently. Now, in a move that would affect a large number of Filipino nurses working in the state, the California Board of Registered Nursing voted in favor of requiring all licensed nurses to submit fingerprints.

The board approved the emergency regulations Thursday, October 23.

The unanimous vote by the board came after an LA Times and Propublica investigation found the California Board of Registered Nursing, the state’s nurse licensing board, allowed sex offenders, drug users and convicts to retain and renew their nursing permits.

“Effective immediately, upon renewal of an Registered Nurse [RN] license, the Board will require licensees to indicate if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony during the last renewal period,” posted the California Board of Nursing on its website. “Convictions must be reported even if they have been, dismissed, reduced, or expunged.”

The California Board of Nursing website added that violations of section 11368 of the Health and Safety Code (forged or altered prescriptions) must also be reported and that all traffic violations (under $300) involving alcohol, drugs, injury to persons, or providing false information must be reported.

Investigators at the LA Times and Propublica, a nonprofit investigative news organization, reviewed and analyzed more than 2,000 cases involving complaints and disciplinary actions on nurses since 2002.

The investigation found that in 115 recent cases the state did not pull a nurses license until that nurse racked up three or more criminal convictions.

“In some cases, nurses with felony records continue to have spotless licenses—even while serving time behind bars,” reported the LA Times and Propublica.

One of the nurses highlighted in the Times and Propublica investigation was a FilAm who is currently serving a five-year sentence after pleading guilty to siphoning Medicare out of more than $3 million.

Fil-Am nurse Haydee Parungao admitted in 2006 to billing Medicare for “hundreds of visits to Southern California patients that she never made, charging for visits while she was out of the country and while she was gambling at Southern California casinos.”

“Yet according to the state of California, she is a nurse in good standing, free to work in any hospital or medical clinic,” reported the Times and Propublica.

The Times and Propublica also found that the Board of Nursing continued to renew a man’s nursing license after he was imprisoned for attempted murder; a nurse who was charged with a DUI and suspended license; and a nurse from Calimesa who, according to the investigation, was in good standing “despite a felony conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child.” (www.asianjournal.com)

http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Saturday Night's alright for California DUI checkpoints

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIHelp.com and www.SanDiegoDUI.com share more news that folks should know.


CHP and Sonora Police Department will conduct a DUI Checkpoint within the city limits of Sonora Saturday night.

“All too often, members of our community are senselessly injured or killed on local roadways by intoxicated or unlicensed drivers,” says Lt. Mike Ayala, Sonora Area CHP Commander.

The checkpoint will be operational between 7pm-2am at an undisclosed location. Traffic permitting, all vehicles will be stopped and drivers will be checked for DUI or unlicensed driving.



DUI CHECKPOINT IN LIVERMORE: The Livermore Police department will hold a DUI and driver's license checkpoint Saturday night in an undisclosed location in the city.

Police hope having a checkpoint will remind drivers about the dangers of impaired driving and encourage them to designate a sober driver.

Depending on traffic volume and weather, all vehicles may be checked, and drivers who are suspected of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol will be arrested.Funding for the checkpoint is through a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Before you Drive Drunk, DUI or DWI - Five Things to Consder

Before You Drive – 5 Things to Consider

Regardless of the name you apply to the situation—DUI or DWI—either one is serious enough to affect your life in a number of ways. Next time you are out having fun, consider the ways a DUI or DWI can affect your life as well as the lives of people you care about. Before you get yourself into this situation, take a moment to consider the ramifications of your actions. You may end up ultimately saving yourself a lot of time and trouble in the process.

You Are Endangering Others When You Drive Drunk

There is no excuse to put others in harm’s way because you want to get home or somewhere else under the influence of alcohol. Plain and simple, you are rolling the dice with other’s lives which is unfair and irresponsible. The next time you even consider getting behind the wheel after drinking, think about the worst that could happen—killing an innocent person. Do you still want to drive?

Criminal Record

When you get arrested, you go to jail. The public is notified about your transgression and you may end up doing further jail time if you are unable to meet the financial demands as well as the probationary demands laid out by the judge. Having a criminal record could seriously hamper and impede your future, making certain types of careers impossible to you if arrested or convicted of drunk driving.

Your Current Employer

Some employers may understand if you miss work because you are in jail. Most employers, however, are far less forgiving and you will most likely lose your current job for absenteeism. Perhaps you were able to get to work on time and no one found out about your little slip-up. Don’t hold your breath; your employer will find out about your arrest and action may be taken, depending on what your job requires of you. If you drive a vehicle for a living, start looking for a new career; it doesn’t matter how long you have been driving—all that matters now is that you messed up.

Financial Implications

Not only can drunk driving affect both current and future employment prospects, but it is a very expensive and time-consuming process that will leave you drained in more ways than one. Count on spending thousands of dollars for a mistake that could have been resolved with a cab ride costing less than $100.

Is it Really Worth the Risk?

Any investor will tell you, taking a risk is only worth it if you could get something of much greater value in return. For obvious reasons, this is not the case with drinking and driving. Just get a ride or take a cab; you’ll feel better knowing you made the right decision.

By-line:
This post was contributed by Kelly Kilpatrick, who writes on the subject of the benefits of degree in corrections. She invites your feedback at kellykilpatrick24@gmail.com.

http://www.mastersincriminaljustice.com/

Thursday, October 23, 2008

California DUI Lindsay Lohan civil suit arising out of California DUI

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey report Ronnie Blake, Jakon Sutter and Dante Nigro accuse the star of commandeering the Suv they were passengers in, after a party in Malibu, California.

She then drove off in the car and was stopped by California DUI police on the Pacific Coast Highway after running a red light.

The California DUI officers arrested Lohan for a California DUI - driving under the influence. They also found cocaine on her possession. The California DUI incident resulted in a second California DUI charge in just three months for the actress - and led to an infamous 84-minute jail sentence.

Papers filed at Los Angeles County Superior Court this week allege Lohan was intoxicated at the time of the California DUI stop, “hostile” and “endangered” the mens’ lives during the ‘joyride’. She allegedly told them: “She was a celebrity… she could do whatever she wants.”

Lohan’s California lawyer Ed McPherson is not impressed with the lawsuit, telling California DUI criminal defense lawyers: “These guys had the night of their lives.” For more info, visit www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles

California DUI checkpoints tonight and tomorrow

California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles are told Police will conduct a California DUI and driver's license checkpoint from 6 to 10 tonight at an undisclosed location in Vallejo.

Traffic volume and weather permitting, all vehicles may be checked and drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs will be arrested, California DUI authorities warned.

Funding for the California DUI operation is provided through a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Safety Administration.

The Moreno Valley Police Department, in its continued dedication to public safety, will be conducting a DUI / Driver’s License CHECKPOINT. The California DUI checkpoint will be held on October 24, 2008 from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

This California DUI checkpoint is part of the ongoing public safety awareness effort being made by the City of Moreno Valley. The focus of the checkpoint will be to reduce drug and alcohol related collisions through public awareness of the problem, while removing California DUI drunk drivers from the roadway. The Moreno Valley Police Department takes a proactive approach in the education of our citizens and enforcement of the laws dealing with drinking and driving.

California DUI / Drunk driving is a major cause of fatal and injury collisions each year. We are seeking your assistance in saving lives. If you are on the roadways and you observe a possible drunk driver call 911 immediately. California DUI Officers will be dispatched to the location and make every effort to prevent the impaired driver from continuing to pose a threat.

The Moreno Valley Police Department wishes to remind you that if you choose to drink alcoholic beverages, please designate a sober driver before getting into a vehicle. Remember “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest!” California DUI lawyers agree.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

California DUI Resources, Out of State DUI & License, California DUI Defense and the Interstate

California DUI defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUI.com and www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com are often asked about an Out of State DUI Violation:

If you are charged with a violation of California DUI law, but live in another state, you should not have your license confiscated by a California DUI police officer (who has no jurisdiction over that state's license.

However, most states have some sort of reciprocity agreement - e.g. The Interstate Compact http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/oostate.html - by which you may be assessed points against your license or be charged according to the laws of your state.

The out-of-state nature of your case may complicate your California DUI defense options. Assuming it gets picked up in the system - which in theory it is supposed to be - expect the state Department of Motor Vehicles who issued your license from to impose the appropriate measures, i.e. honor & reciprocate any California DMV suspenson.

Contact http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/ California DUI Criminal Defense Attorneys:

San Diego California DUI Lawyer


California DUI Attorney


California DUI Attorney


San Diego California DUI Help





http://www.google.com

Search for a Qualified California DUI Defense Attorney

How can you find a qualified & competent California DUI Criminal Defense Attorney?



Various types of lawyers handle California DUI Criminal Defense & drunk driving cases, including public defenders, general practitioners, criminal defense lawyers, and DUI Specialist attorneys.



A San Diego County public defender is a California DUI Criminal Defense attorney provided at little or no cost to provide defense services to people who financially are unable to hire a private San Diego lawyer. Most San Diego County Districts generally do not offer public defenders services unless you are unemployed, significantly under-employed and/or have no assets.



Some excellent questions to begin asking when searching for a California DUI Criminal Defense lawyer are:



What are his or her California DUI Criminal Defense attorney's qualifications?



Is he or she a Specialist member of the California DUI Lawyers Association?



Is he or she a member of the National College for DUI Defense?



Whether or not you ultimately end up hiring a California DUI Specialist attorney, it is a smart idea to speak to a California DUI Specialist lawyer in this highly complex field.



You can read more -Why use San Diego County's Specialist in DUI and DMV Law http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/why.html .


Or try a Free California DUI Evaluation at http://www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/survey.html .





San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended informed the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



See below sites for more information about a California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer:

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help

Monday, October 20, 2008

Beat a California DUI everytime!

California DUI Defense Lawyer Rick Mueller can make you laugh or he can help you beat the California DUI officer and California drunk driving charge: http://www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com .



Q. What is one of the best possible things you California DUI drivers can do to help to stop California DUI Police from making so many California drunk driving arrests?



The California DUI answer comes from our lucky friends across the ocean.



From the Land where drink driving is considered a sport, comes a true
story from Carrick-on-Suir Ireland.



Recently a routine Gardai patrol parked outside a local neighbourhood
tavern. Late in the evening the Garda noticed a man leaving the bar so
intoxicated that he could barely walk.



The man stumbled around the car park for a few minutes, with the Garda
quietly observing.



After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five vehicles, the man
managed to find his car which he fell into. He was there for a few minutes
as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.



Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off (it was a fine
dry night), flicked the indicators on, then off, tooted the horn and then
switched on the lights.



He moved the vehicle forward a few cm, reversed a little and then remained
stationary for a few more minutes as some more vehicles left.



At last he pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly down the
road.



The Garda, having patiently waited all this time, now started up the patrol
car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man over and carried
out a Breathalyzer test.



To his amazement theBreathalyzer indicated no evidence of the man having
consumed alcohol at all!



Dumbfounded, the Garda said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the
Police station this Breathalyzer equipment must be broken."



"I doubt it," said the man, "tonight I'm the designated decoy".



True story...











Click on below sites for more information or to contact a San Diego California DUI Lawyer who can help:

San Diego California DUI Lawyer


San Diego California DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego California DUI Help


1-800-The-Law-DUI


http://www.google.com


http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html


http://www.yahoo.com

Sunday, October 19, 2008

California DUI Defense at DMV Hearings

California DUI criminal defense lawyers inform the public that the San Diego DUI / DMV hearing for a possible license suspension is like a mini-DUI trial without a jury, but with much different San Diego DMV rules, San Diego DMV laws and San Diego DMV procedures.

California Drunk Driving DUI Defense attorneys report the San Diego DUI / DMV hearing is presided over by a Driver Safety Officer (DMV hearing officer) rather than a real judge, an employee of the DMV not trained in law who acts as both prosecutor and judge. As unfair as it is, she or he can legally object to your evidence, rule on her or his own objection, dually engage your San Diego DUI / DMV lawyer, and admit or not admit either party's evidence.



California Drunk Driving DUI Defense lawyers emphasize the San Diego Driver Safety Officer offers evidence in the form of documents and/or witnesses. The Driver Safety Officer offers the San Diego drunk driving / DUI police report, DMV records, San Diego DUI alcohol reports and the important San Diego DUI officer's sworn statement entitled a "DS 367." With no Fifth Amendment right at the hearing, your San Diego DUI / DMV attorney usually will not want you to be present at the hearing since the Driver Safety Officer can call you as a witness and force you to testify against yourself if you ill-advisedly appear.



California Drunk Driving DUI Defense attorneys believe the San Diego DMV Driver Safety Officer's decision will usually be mailed a few days or even weeks after the hearing. A San Diego DMV / DMV suspension can be set aside or sustained. If the San Diego DMV suspension is sustained, the decision can be appealed to the DMV in Sacramento and/or to the San Diego Superior court by filing a San Diego DMV petition for writ of mandamus.




California DUI Defense lawyer's defenses at an APS hearing are specialized and technical, more so than in criminal court. Frequent San Diego DUI / DMV proof problems - as well as legal, procedural and bureaucratic obstacles - are possible grounds for setting aside the suspension.




Because of the peculiar nature of San Diego DUI / DMV hearings and the absence of an independent San Diego DUI judge to offer some protection, you are strongly advised not to try to represent yourself. Because these are not San Diego DUI criminal proceedings, San Diego County public defenders are unavailable, only California DUI Defense lawyers.




Your California DUI Defense attorney has just 10 CALENDAR DAYS after the DUI arrest to call the San Diego DMV Driver Safety Office to timely demand a hearing. You waive your right to a hearing after the 10 day deadline is up.



If your California DUI Defense attorney has not been retained within 10 days of the arrest, you should contact the local Driver's Safety Office yourself, request a 5 day extension so you can get a San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney Specialist.




Alternatively, if your request for an extension is denied by the San Diego DMV supervisor, request an In-person hearing, the Discovery (evidence), a Stay (stop) of the Suspension, and the Name of the Driver Safety Officer.




Please ask for the name of the person you speak with. Please do not discuss the reasons why you are contesting the suspension. The San Diego Driver Safety Office is located at 9174 Sky Park Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego (858/627-3901 or fax 858/627-3925).




The San Diego DMV may not be able to schedule a hearing before your 30-day temporary license expires. Your San Diego DUI / DMV lawyer will request a Notice of Stay of the 30-day temporary license until a San Diego DMV hearing is provided and a San Diego DMV decision is actually rendered, according to California Drunk Driving DUI Defense attorneys.







California Drunk Driving DUI Defense Lawyers:

California Drunk Driving DUI Defense Lawyer


California Drunk Driving DUI Defense


California Drunk Driving DUI Defense Attorney


California Drunk Driving DUI Defense Help



San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf .

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Former California police officer tests positive for alcohol, breaks felony drunk driving criminal case release condition

SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA DUI & DRUNK DRIVING DEFENSE LAWYERS at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com announce that Sandra Woodall, the former San Jose police officer at the heart of a suspected drunken driving cover-up by police officers, has tested positive for alcohol since her arrest, breaking one of her release conditions, according to court documents.

Woodall — whose case was back in court Friday — failed an alcohol test Aug. 1 and was ordered by a judge to constantly wear an alcohol monitor bracelet, court documents say.

While the alcohol test affected Woodall's pending felony drunken-driving case, it is unclear whether it would have any effect on the criminal investigation of two San Jose police officers who may have tried to cover up Woodall's intoxication after the district attorney's investigator smashed her Cadillac Escalade into two other cars in San Jose on March 25. The cover-up case is now in the hands of District Attorney Dolores Carr. Her decision is pending.

Using an investigation by the police department, Carr will decide if Sgt. Will Manion and officer Patrick D'Arrigo — both now on administrative leave — committed a crime when they dealt with the accident that night.

Witnesses said that a belligerent and disoriented Woodall was openly admitting that she had been drinking and was just out of rehab. Although officers reported that they noted no signs of intoxication and did not test her alcohol level, medical personnel believed she was drunk and later told investigators they felt that Manion had tried to disrupt their attempts to determine her level of sobriety and get her to the hospital. Later, at the hospital, D'Arrigo reportedly told the mother of a teenage accident victim that it was too late to test Woodall for alcohol.

After questions arose about the initial accident investigation, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office brought in the California Attorney General's office to review the case because Woodall now works as a district attorney's investigator, creating a conflict of interest. The attorney general's office eventually charged Woodall with felony drunken driving. She has pleaded not guilty and a preliminary hearing for Woodall is set for Jan. 15.
www.SanDiegodui.com

Friday, October 17, 2008

California prison inmate turned millionaire dies in DUI accident - 3 times the limit.

California DUI attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUI.com report that DeWayne McKinney, a former California prison inmate turned millionaire, was driving with a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit last week when he was killed in a moped accident in Hawaii, Honolulu's chief medical examiner said Thursday.

McKinney, 47, was killed shortly after midnight Oct. 7 when he crashed his moped into a pole and was thrown to the asphalt. He died from multiple internal injuries, said Dr. Kanthi Dealwis.

Millionaire ex-inmate dies in scooter...From Prison to a Paradise for ATMs
Tests revealed that McKinney had a blood-alcohol content of 0.22%.

In 2000, McKinney was released from prison after Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas concluded that he'd been wrongly convicted of a 1980 robbery-murder at a Burger King in Orange.

McKinney received $1 million in a settlement with the Orange Police Department and parlayed it into a multimillion dollar ATM business on the Hawaiian islands.

He installed bank machines in restaurants, bars and shopping malls, profiting each time a customer paid a convenience fee. He bought an ocean-view home in Honolulu, a boat and other luxuries.

In the months after his release, he expressed no anger or bitterness about his wrongful conviction.

Instead, he spoke at churches about the faith that carried him through his 19 years in prison. He appeared at anti-death penalty conferences and told his story.

But he also struggled with alcoholism, friends said.

"I'm so sad, because he only had eight years of life," said Nancy Clark, an Orange County woman who runs treatment programs for recovering alcoholics and drug abusers. Touched by the story of McKinney's wrongful conviction, Clark gave him a free apartment in which to live after his release.

Considering the horrors McKinney endured in prison, she said, it's not surprising that he turned to alcohol.

The last time Clark saw McKinney was at an anti-death penalty event in Los Angeles. He was drinking heavily that night.

San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller's presentation and materials were excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller is known as the "DMV Guru" by the Bar Association.




Specially recognized as a Contributor to the California Drunk Driving Law book, he is now the San Diego DUI Editorial Consultant for the most comprehensive reference book for California DUI law. Known as California's bible for DUI defense, authored by Ed Kuwatch, Paul Burglin and Barry Simons, the book features some of San Diego DUI attorney Rick Mueller's hard work.



San Diego drunk driving lawyer Rick Mueller is a Specialist Member of the California DUI Attorneys Association (formerly the Association of California Deuce Defenders). He is also a member of the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.



San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller speaks at Strategies in Handling DUI Cases seminars, at the DUI & Drug Defense seminar at the San Diego Bar Building, at the North San Diego County Bar Association's Drunk Driving - DMV seminars, and at the Public Defender's Office DMV - DUI Training seminars. His DMV - DUI work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. Since 1983, DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller has actively defended these cases. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is in Good Standing with the State Bar (#114305).



Get Help Today:



* COMPLETE FREE SAN DIEGO DUI "EVALUATION FORM" href="http://www.sandiegodui.com">http://www.sandiegodui.com/survey.html



Quality San Diego DMV - DUI legal representation: 1-800-THE-LAW-DUI
(1-800-843-5293)



4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500

San Diego, CA 92122

(619) 218 - 2997 portable/voice mail




Click on below sites for more information by a San Diego DUI Lawyer:

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help





http://www.google.com


http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html


http://www.yahoo.com


Thursday, October 16, 2008

South Carolina statutory resource which California Legislators could use to frame a proper California DUI statute

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net and www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com have been advocating for years that the California DUI police be required to videotape and record an entire California DUI or California Drunk Driving arrest, from observation of driving to the conversations to the field testing to the chemical testing!

Here's a South Carolina statutory resource which California Legislators could use to frame a proper California DUI statute.

SECTION 56 5 2953. Incident site and breath site videotaping; admissibility as evidence; purchase and maintenance of videotaping equipment.

(A) A person who violates Section 56 5 2930, 56 5 2933, or 56 5 2945 must have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site videotaped.
(1) The videotaping at the incident site must:
(a) begin not later than the activation of the officer’s blue lights and conclude after the arrest of the person for a violation of Section 56 5 2930, 56 5 2933, or a probable cause determination that the person violated Section 56 5 2945; and
(b) include the person being advised of his Miranda rights before any field sobriety tests are administered, if the tests are administered.
(2) The videotaping at the breath site:
(a) must be completed within three hours of the person’s arrest for a violation of Section 56 5 2930, 56 5 2933, or 56 5 2945 or a probable cause determination that the person violated Section 56 5 2945, unless compliance is not possible because the person needs emergency medical treatment considered necessary by licensed medical personnel;
(b) must include the reading of Miranda rights, the entire breath test procedure, the person being informed that he is being videotaped, and that he has the right to refuse the test;
(c) must include the person taking or refusing the breath test and the actions of the breath test operator while conducting the test;
(d) must also include the person’s conduct during the required twenty minute pre test waiting period, unless the officer submits a sworn affidavit certifying that it was physically impossible to videotape this waiting period. However, if the arresting officer administers the breath test, the person’s conduct during the twenty minute pre test waiting period must be videotaped.
The videotapes of the incident site and of the breath test site are admissible pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Evidence in a criminal, administrative, or civil proceeding by any party to the action.
(B) Nothing in this section may be construed as prohibiting the introduction of other evidence in the trial of a violation of Section 56 5 2930, 56 5 2933, or 56 5 2945. Failure by the arresting officer to produce the videotapes required by this section is not alone a ground for dismissal of any charge made pursuant to Section 56 5 2930, 56 5 2933, or 56 5 2945 if the arresting officer submits a sworn affidavit certifying that the videotape equipment at the time of the arrest, probable cause determination, or breath test device was in an inoperable condition, stating reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the equipment in an operable condition, and certifying that there was no other operable breath test facility available in the county or, in the alternative, submits a sworn affidavit certifying that it was physically impossible to produce the videotape because the person needed emergency medical treatment, or exigent circumstances existed. Further, in circumstances including, but not limited to, road blocks, traffic accident investigations, and citizens’ arrests, where an arrest has been made and the videotaping equipment has not been activated by blue lights, the failure by the arresting officer to produce the videotapes required by this section is not alone a ground for dismissal. However, as soon as videotaping is practicable in these circumstances, videotaping must begin and conform with the provisions of this section. Nothing in this section prohibits the court from considering any other valid reason for the failure to produce the videotape based upon the totality of the circumstances; nor do the provisions of this section prohibit the person from offering evidence relating to the arresting law enforcement officer’s failure to produce the videotape.
(C) A videotape must not be disposed of in any manner except for its transfer to a master tape for consolidation purposes until the results of any legal proceeding in which it may be involved are finally determined.
(D) SLED is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, and supplying all necessary videotaping equipment for use at the breath test sites. SLED also is responsible for monitoring all breath test sites to ensure the proper maintenance of videotaping equipment. The Department of Public Safety is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, and supplying all videotaping equipment for use in all law enforcement vehicles used for traffic enforcement. The Department of Public Safety also is responsible for monitoring all law enforcement vehicles used for traffic enforcement to ensure proper maintenance of videotaping equipment.
(E) Beginning one month from the effective date of this act, all of the funds received in accordance with Section 14 1 208(C)(9) must be expended by SLED to equip all breath test sites with videotaping devices and supplies. Once all breath test sites have been equipped fully with videotaping devices and supplies, eighty seven and one half percent of the funds received in accordance with Section 14 1 208(C)(9) must be expended by the Department of Public Safety to purchase, maintain, and supply videotaping equipment for vehicles used for traffic enforcement. The remaining twelve and one half percent of the funds received in accordance with Section 14 1 208(C)(9) must be expended by SLED to purchase, maintain, and supply videotaping equipment for the breath test sites. Funds must be distributed by the State Treasurer to the Department of Public Safety and SLED on a monthly basis. The Department of Public Safety and SLED are authorized to carry forward any unexpended funds received in accordance with Section 14 1 208(C)(9) as of June thirtieth of each year and to expend these carried forward funds for the purchase, maintenance, and supply of videotaping equipment. The Department of Public Safety and SLED must report the revenue received under this section and the expenditures for which the revenue was used as required in the department’s and SLED’s annual appropriation request to the General Assembly.
(F) The Department of Public Safety and SLED must promulgate regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this section.
(G) The provisions contained in Section 56 5 2953(A), (B), and (C) take effect for each law enforcement vehicle used for traffic enforcement once the law enforcement vehicle is equipped with a videotaping device. The provisions contained in Section 56 5 2953(A), (B), and (C) take effect for a breath test site once the breath test site is equipped with a videotaping device.

California DUI / Drunk Driving Attorney help at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net & www.Google.com

California DUI Attorney Specialist Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated San Diego County Drunk Driving, DUI & DMV Defense attorney with over 24 years of experience.



Known as the "DMV Guru," Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his law practice to aggressively defending those accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. He has successfully saved the driving privileges of many clients in the past year alone. http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/



San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended informed the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey to find out your best strategy and to protect your driving privileges in California.
http://www.sandiegoduilawyer.com/survey.html







Click on below sites for more information by California DUI Criminal Defense Attorneys:

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help







http://www.google.com


http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html


http://www.yahoo.com


Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Murder + Gross vehicular manslaughter sought in California DUI death / alleged car race case

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUI.com are often asked how murder could be charged in a DUI case. Here's an example.

A man faces a charge of first-degree murder for his alleged role in the car race on State Route 299 that resulted in an Oct. 6 crash that claimed the life of 9-year-old Nicole Quigley.

The man, Mr. Whitmill, pleaded not guilty to the murder charge at his arraignment Tuesday, and also entered not guilty pleas to charges of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence causing injury, vehicular manslaughter and engaging in a speed contest.

The man Whitmill was allegedly racing with, Anthony Marques Flores, also appeared in court Tuesday and pleaded not guilty to charges of vehicular manslaughter, engaging in a speed contest and leaving the scene of an accident that caused serious injury.

Whitmill remains held on $1 million bail, while Flores remains held on $250,000 bail.

Public Defender Laura Cutler was assigned to represent Whitmill and Deputy Conflict Council Kaleb Cockrum was assigned to defend Flores, after both told the court they could not afford an attorney.

Whitmill was allegedly driving a 2004 Pontiac Sunfire when he and Flores, who was driving a now infamous 1998 Mustang convertible, allegedly began racing, reportedly reaching speeds of more than 90 mph while barreling down State Route 299.

During the alleged race, Whitmill's Sunfire reportedly clipped a Chevrolet Tahoe that was driving the same direction, and carrying Debra Quigley, her twin daughters and one of their friends. Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat said in an e-mail to the Times-Standard that he thinks the evidence will show that Whitmill tried to pass between the Mustang and the Tahoe at a high rate of speed and ended up colliding with them both. The impact of the collision caused both the Sunfire and the Tahoe to veer from the road and down an embankment.

The Tahoe came to rest after slamming into a utility pole at an unknown rate of speed. Nine-year-old Nicole Quigley reportedly died instantly from the impact of the collision, and Debra Quigley reportedly suffered injuries to her torso and neck and was later flown to Rogue Valley Medical Center in Medford, Ore., for treatment.

Nicole Quigley's twin sister and the other passenger reportedly suffered minor injuries and walked away from the wreckage.

The accident reportedly left the Sunfire resting on its roof, and its passenger, 40-year-old Cheri Marcelli, of Willow Creek, with major injuries. She has since been released from Mad River Community Hospital. Whitmill reportedly escaped the crash uninjured, but was taken into custody at the scene on a parole hold.

Flores reportedly fled the scene of the accident, spawning a days-long search for him and his car, which he reportedly spray painted black after the accident. Flores was arrested Oct. 9, after local law enforcement received dozens of tips about the whereabouts of silver Mustangs all over the county. Flores' car was recovered a couple of days later.

While elements of malice and planning are generally required for a first-degree murder charge, University of California Hastings School of Law professor David Levine said those elements aren't necessary for this charge, as Whitmill is alleged to have committed a separate felony, driving under the influence, that also led to Nicole Quigley's death.

It's a rule of criminal law that if you commit 'felony A,' and in the course of committing 'felony A' a death takes place, even if you didn't intend for that death to take place, you can be charged with first-degree murder. The commission of this separate felony DUI is what enables the prosecutor to charge murder. And, of course, that leaves tremendous leverage for a plea bargain. It's certainly legitimate (for the prosecutor) to charge up like that, according to California DUI criminal defense lawyers. www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingattorney.net/about

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help



http://www.google.com

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

California DUI suspects run away from California Drunk Driving police

San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorneys report 2 new drunk driving suspects attempt to flee after being stopped and investigated for possible DUI, at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/articles.

A man was arrested for California DUI - driving under the influence early this morning in Marin County after a brief chase, according to the California Highway Patrol California DUI liason officer.

The vehicle was reported at about 1:45 a.m. to be driving erratically away from Stinson Beach on Panoramic Highway, according to California DUI lawyers. The CHP intercepted the vehicle, which did not immediately stop when contacted by California DUI officers.


Another man was arrested Saturday morning on suspicion of California DUI - driving under the influence after crashing and hiding in the wilderness.

Joshua Bounds, 32 years old of Oregon, was driving a 1985 BMW southbound on state Route 199 near mile marker 9.66 at 7:40 a.m., with passenger Tina Falleur, of Rogue River, Ore., seated in the right front seat, the California Highway Patrol stated in a news release. As Bounds came around a corner, he lost control of the vehicle and went off the west edge of Route 199, partially overturning onto the driver’s side, California DUI criminal attorneys stated.

Upon hearing the police approach, Bounds and Falleur, 41, fled into the woods, hiding among the trees and brush, the CHP stated. They were nowhere to be found when the CHP arrived, but a CHP officer was pointed in the direction of the brush and heavily forested hill where the suspects were last seen by U.S. Forest Service personnel, California DUI defense lawyers stated. The officer searched for the two suspects and, with a coordinated effort from another CHP officer, detained the suspects, who were taken out of the forest area.

Upon further investigation, it was discovered that Bounds was California DUI - driving while under the influence of alcohol, the CHP stated. He was subsequently arrested on suspicion of California DUI and taken to the Del Norte County jail pending charges of California DUI, hit-and-run and driving with a suspended license.

Monday, October 13, 2008

NHTSA's California DUI clues

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com have been asked what NHTSA considers purported DUI clues on California roads:

DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI cues related to problems in maintaining proper lane position include,

Weaving,
Weaving across lane lines,
Straddling a lane line,
Drifting,
Swerving,
Almost striking a vehicle or other object, and
Turning with a wide radius, or drifting during a curve.

The DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI cues related to speed and braking problems include,

Stopping problems (too far, too short, too jerky),
Accelerating for no reason,
Varying speed, and
Slow speed.

The DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI cues related to vigilance problems include,

Driving without headlights at night,
Failure to signal a turn or lane change, or Signaling inconsistently with actions,
Driving in opposing lanes or the wrong way on a one-way street,
Slow response to traffic signals,
Slow or failure to repsond to officer's signals, and
Stopping in the lane for no apparent reason.

The DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI cues related to judgment problems include

Following too closely,
Improper or unsafe lane change,
Illegal or improper turn (too fast, jerky, sharp, etc.),
Driving on other than the designated roadway,
Stopping inappropriately in response to an officer,
Inappropriate or unusual behavior, and
Appearing to be impaired.




Post-Stop DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI Cues

In addition to the driving cues, the following post-stop cues have been found to be excellent predictors of DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI.

Difficulty with motor vehicle controls,
Difficulty exiting the vehicle,
Fumbling with driver's license or registration,
Repeating questions or comments,
Swaying, unsteady, or balance problems,
Leaning on the vehicle or other object,
Slurred speech,
Slow to respond to officer/officer must repeat questions,
Provides incorrect information or changes answers, and
Odor of alcoholic beverage from the driver.


www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com/blog

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Gross Vehicular Manslaughter Felony DUI hit & run for unlicensed 16 year old who causes fatal accident

California DUI & drunk driving criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com report that a 16-year-old boy is under arrest for causing a fatal accident while drunk and then fleeing the scene, according to authorities.

The California Highway Patrol says the juvenile, who has not been identified because of his age, was allegedly driving a 2000 Ford Mustang at 80 miles per hour in a 40 MPH zone on Cottage Way late Friday night. The boy failed to stop at a red light and broadsided 58-year-old Aman Khanna's car on the driver's side, killing Khanna instantly.

The boy allegedly fled on foot, but was arrested a short time later at his house. The CHP maintains that witnesses to the crash identified the boy as the driver and sole occupant.

The juvenile was arrested and charged with gross vehicular manslaughter, felony DUI, felony hit and run and driving without a license, according to California DUI & drunk driving criminal defense attorneys at www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net/articles.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

California DUI case fixer looking at 8 years, per California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net report that a California man was convicted Friday in connection with his role in a DUI records-altering scheme.

Hector Whitley was convicted on 10 felony counts involving conspiracy, secreting and destroying court records, and making fraudulent computer entries in seven DUI cases, California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/about said.

Former Sacramento Superior Court clerk Fernando Catlin, the co-defendant, was assigned to enter data relating to active California Drunk Driving / DUI cases.

Whitley was identified as the person who offered to arrange for the dismissals through Catlin in return for money, California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com are told.

Investigators linked seven false case dismissals to court orders and computer entries made by Catlin, California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com learned.

Catlin was sentenced in August to five years in state prison while Whitley faces up to eight years in state prison, according to California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUI.com.

California DUI Attorney Rick Mueller speaks at CACJ Rules of the Road DUI seminar, Strategies in Handling DUI Cases seminars, at the DUI & Drug Defense seminar at the San Diego Bar Building, at the North San Diego County Bar Association's Drunk Driving - DMV seminars, and, among others, at the Public Defender's Office DMV - DUI Training seminars. His California DMV - DUI work is also featured in the Association of California Deuce Defenders' materials. Since 1983, California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller has actively defended these cases.


Complicated problems can be fixed by a competent California DUI Lawyer:

California DUI Lawyer


California DUI


California DUI Attorney


California DUI Help





http://www.google.com


http://www.sandiegoduihelp.com/duiblog/index.html

Friday, October 10, 2008

California DUI / drunk driving criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com announce checkpoints tonight

California DUI attorneys at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net who specialize in Orange County and San Diego County cases may want to know this Orange County Sheriff's Department Drunk Driving announcement.

The Orange County Sheriff's Department will be conducting California DUI roving patrols in the cities of San Clemente, Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano on Friday, October 10, according to California DUI / drunk driving criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com.

The Tri-City California DUI teams will target areas that have a high incidence of DUI related arrests and collisions. These roving California DUI patrols and California DUI checkpoints, scheduled for a later date are part of a grant the Sheriff's Department received from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, as confirmed by California DUI / drunk driving criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUIhelp.com.

www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net California DUI news stories: bus driver uninsured, Jane pleas

California DUI criminal defense attorneys heard the driver of the bus that crashed and killed eight people near Williams last weekend was not insured. That's just one of the new details revealed in the ongoing investigation into the deadly crash that injured more than 30 people. The driver of the bus, 52-year-old Quintin Watts, got the driving job because he was the stepson of the bus owner, 68-year-old Daniel Cobb, who was killed in the rollover accident, according to California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.sandiegodui.com.

Cobb reportedly hired his stepson as a favor last week. Sunday's trip to Colusa Casino was Watts' first behind the wheel of the bus, and he did not have a license to drive more than ten passengers, per California DUI criminal defense attorneys. He was driving a group of senior citizens from Sacramento to the casino for a night of gambling. Watts was arrested for California DUI.



California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.sandiegoduihelp.com also report an actor Cuts Deal After California DUI in Kern County: Thomas Jane receives probation in CA drunk driving incident.

Thomas Jane was sentenced to one year probation after pleading no contest to driving under the influence in California. The star of ‘Punisher’ was arrested after a traffic stop in Shafter, California last March after doing 120 mph in his Maserati and facing mandatory 60 days custody if convicted. Jane must also pay a fine and enroll in an alcohol education program, per California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.sandiegoduilawyer.com.

In exchange for the plea involving the misdemeanor drunk driving offense, the prosecution dropped charges of possession of a controlled substance without a prescription and having a blood-alcohol content above the legal limit. Jane, 39, had two outstanding speeding tickets from earlier in the year in Kern County that were also resolved, according to California DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.sandiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

California drunk driving DMV DUI Lawyers re: Watson Murder charged in 3rd DUI

San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyers at www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/about report that a Phelan man is charged with murder for an alcohol-related crash that led to the death of his girlfriend and injured three others, prosecutors said Thursday.

It was his third arrest for driving under the influence since 2006, San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers said.

Edward Tilden Roth, 61, now faces life in prison for the murder of Irene Rosemary Young, his girlfriend and a passenger in his car when he allegedly caused a two-vehicle crash two weeks ago in Phelan, San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers said.

Three people were injured in the other car involved, including an 11-month-old girl, San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers said.

After the collision, Young was airlifted to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers said.

Roth was arraigned for DUI causing injury on Sept. 30, and his bail was set at $50,000.

The next day, Young died from her injuries. As a result, the DA filed a “Watson murder” charge, which allows a DUI defendant who caused a death to be charged with murder under certain circumstances.

Roth was arraigned again on Tuesday on the murder charge and his bail was raised to $2 million.

Roth pleaded no contest to a DUI charge in September 2006 and pleaded guilty to another DUI charge in April 2007, according to San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers.

San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers said Roth is also charged with gross vehicular manslaughter, and although he can be convicted of both, he can only be sentenced for the more serious charge. Both charges carry a sentence of 15 years to life in prison.

“It carries potential consequence in the state prison system,” San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers said of the murder charge.

San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyers are told that the collision occurred around 6 p.m. Sept. 26 at the intersection of Nevada and Phelan roads.

The California Superior Court allows the prosecution of cases that have become known as a “Watson Murder.” This can be charged when a person does “an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life.”

Watson murders are usually charged only in the most extreme circumstances, for example when a repeat DUI offender was heavily intoxicated and driving very recklessly. The prosecutor must show that the driver had a special knowledge or appreciation of the dangers of drunk driving. For this, the district attorney usually points to the fact that the defendant suffered a prior DUI conviction, and attended an alcohol awareness class.

A person convicted of DUI murder is sentenced to prison for 15 years to life.

You may need a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 24 years of experience. Known as the San Diego California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.



San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



Simply complete the Free San Diego California DUI Evaluation at http://www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey.html for your best San Diego California DUI defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege, as has been done for many good people who necessarily become San Diego California DUI Clients.






http://www.yahoo.com



California drunk driving DMV DUI Lawyers:

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney

National Safety Council supports 21 year old drinking age, per California DUI Attorneys

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com and www.SanDiegoduihelp.com say the National Safety Council (NSC) announced it has reaffirmed its public policy to support a national 21-year-old minimal legal drinking age. The policy, reaffirmed by representatives of the NSC's 50,000 member organizations at their annual meeting in Anaheim, Calif., includes this key statement:
The National Safety Council supports the minimum drinking age of 21 and opposes any attempt to lower this age and reaffirms the need for Federal sanctions for states that violate this provision.
The NSC first adopted its policy supporting the 21-year-old minimal legal drinking age in 1984, preceding federal establishment of it that year. Since that time, extensive studies have proven that the 21 law has saved about 1,000 lives annually. (The full policy, "Under 21 Drinking and Driving," is available on the NSC website at http://www.nsc.org/news/21_drinking_policy.aspx.)
"The research is clear. Anything less than a 21 minimum drinking age leads to more deaths, particularly of our young adults. The 21 minimum drinking age has saved more than 25,000 American lives," said Janet Froetscher, NSC president & CEO. "By reaffirming this policy, the NSC is making clear our fact-based understanding that if the drinking age is lowered, injuries and deaths will significantly increase. We learned this from disastrous experiments of lowering the drinking age in the 1970s and 80s. We can't let it happen again."
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), an NSC partner in the Support 21 Coalition, applauded the policy reaffirmation.
"The 21 minimum legal drinking age law is proven to be one of the nation's most important and lifesaving laws to protect youth. There is overwhelming support for this law, including that of national health and safety leaders, enforcement, legislators and the American public," said MADD National President Laura Dean-Mooney, who also pointed to a recent Nationwide Insurance survey that found 72 percent of adults think lowering the drinking age would make alcohol more accessible to kids, and nearly 50 percent think it would increase binge drinking among teens. More than half of survey respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a state representative who supports lowering the legal limit or send their children to colleges or universities with "party school" reputations.
"Solutions to the binge-drinking problems on college campuses start with increased enforcement, changing the environment and limiting access to alcohol," Dean-Mooney said.

California DUI criminal defense attorneys at www.SanDiegoDUI.com and www.SanDiegodrunkdrivingattorney.net agree the National Safety Council ( www.nsc.org) saves lives by preventing injuries and deaths at work, in homes, communities and on the roads through leadership, research, education and advocacy.

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help







http://www.google.com

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

San Diego California Attorney shows driver consents to second officer's blood test

Filed 2/23/07 Eberle v. DMV CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL LOUIS EBERLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
Defendant and Appellant.
D048117
(Super. Ct. No. GIC849642)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M.
Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.
The Department of Motor Vehicles (the Department) appeals a judgment granting
a petition for writ of mandate brought by petitioner Michael Louis Eberle, setting aside
an administrative suspension of his driving privileges. (Veh. Code, § 13353; all further
statutory references are to this code unless noted.) Using its independent judgment, and
taking into account the policies behind the implied consent law, the superior court
analyzed the record and concluded that under the circumstances of this particular case,
2
Eberle had not refused to comply with chemical test procedures and therefore the
suspension should be set aside. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.)
We conclude the trial court's decision to grant the petition was based on
substantial evidence, and the judgment must be affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A
Arrest
Eberle was driving his red sports car in downtown San Diego at approximately
11:45 p.m. on May 14, 2005. As his car stopped at a red light at the intersection of
Broadway and Broadway Circle, San Diego Police Officer R.L. Rice observed that its
driver appeared to be having difficulty keeping the engine running, since the engine
RPM's were going up and down. As the light turned green and the car accelerated, the
engine was revving and the tires were spinning and sliding.
Officer Rice turned on his cruiser's overhead emergency lights and siren. Eberle
slowed and stopped along the curbline on 4th Avenue. Rice spoke to the driver through
the driver's side door, saw that Eberle was the driver and requested his license,
registration, and proof of insurance. Eberle stated he had recently purchased the vehicle
and was having trouble getting it registered. Rice observed that Eberle's eyes were glassy
and bloodshot/watery, and he smelled of alcoholic beverages. Eberle told the officer that
he had had a couple of drinks with dinner. Eberle performed poorly on field sobriety
tests and was placed under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).
(§ 23152.) He was not offered a preliminary alcohol screening test.
3
When Eberle was told by Officer Rice that he was required to submit to either a
blood test or a breath test, he said he did not want to take either one. The officer then
read him the chemical test refusal admonition on the back side of the DS-367 form, and
received the same answer. Rice's report shows that he then transported Eberle to police
headquarters. Officer Cavanaugh obtained a blood sample from Eberle at 12:35 a.m. on
May 15, 2005. In the course of the arrest, Eberle was served with an administrative per
se suspension/revocation order.
B
Administrative Hearing
On June 15, 2005, an administrative per se hearing was held on the elements of an
implied consent violation. At the hearing, Eberle testified that on May 14, 2005,
beginning around 6:45 p.m., he was eating and drinking at a restaurant for approximately
two hours and had four to six glasses of wine. After dinner, he went to another restaurant
and had another two glasses of wine, leaving at approximately 10:30 p.m. He was
suffering from an ear infection at that time. That evening he was pulled over by the
police.
Eberle did not dispute that Officer Rice advised him during the traffic stop that he
was required by law to submit to a chemical test (blood or breath) to determine his blood
alcohol concentration. He admitted that he told Rice that he did not want to take either a
blood test or a breath test. Although he was told by Rice that he would more than likely
lose his license for one year if he did not submit to chemical testing, he still refused a test.
4
Eberle also testified that when the police car driven by Officer Rice pulled away to
transport him to the police station, it was cut off by another driver, causing Rice to stop
and conduct a separate DUI investigation of this other driver. In the meantime, a female
officer (whose name was unknown to Eberle) came and took Eberle to the police station
at 14th and Broadway. These other events were not shown in the police report. There
was some delay in getting his sports car towed, as it was so unusual.
When Eberle was waiting at the station, the unidentified female officer asked him
whether he would be willing to take a chemical test, and he voluntarily submitted to one.
(It should also be noted that Eberle's request at the hearing to submit expert testimony
from a forensic alcohol analyst was refused, but those issues are not disputed on this
appeal.)
In her findings, the hearing officer determined Eberle had clearly and
unequivocally refused Officer Rice's requests that he submit to chemical testing. The
hearing officer also found no persuasive evidence to support Eberle's version that while
Rice was busy with other activity, a female officer had taken Eberle to the police station,
where he agreed to be tested. The hearing officer explained:
"The testimony of [Eberle] is deemed not credible in that the alcohol
affects [sic] of 4-6 glasses of wine along with a 'severe' inner ear
infection would affect his capacity to perceive events clearly or
rationally. He also testified to being unfamiliar with the area and not
looking at his watch to establish any time frames. The Officer
specifically states in his report that he himself transported [Eberle] to
headquarters for a blood test. More weight is given to the reports
completed at or near the time of the event than to [Eberle's]
testimony of events from a month ago while he was intoxicated."
5
The administrative notice of findings and decision was issued on June 20, 2005,
upholding the suspension. The basis for the suspension was the hearing officer's finding
that Eberle unlawfully refused to submit to chemical testing after being requested to do so
by the arresting officer and after being advised that his driving privileges would be
suspended or revoked if he refused.
C
Mandamus Proceedings and Ruling
Eberle filed this petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenging the
decision to suspend his license. He claimed the suspension had been imposed arbitrarily,
without support in the record.
Opposition was filed and the administrative record was lodged. Following
argument, the court issued its ruling. After disposing of the expert testimony dispute (not
challenged on appeal), the court addressed the refusal of testing issues, noting these were
difficult cases with many factual variations of intentional delay tactics on the part of
drivers. The court observed that "the law is pretty clear on refusals, it's that the officers
don't have to play the game over and over again." However, the court noted that in this
particular case, "there's an interesting twist because of all the delay tactics I just described
were not really done by Mr. Eberle. The tactic he employed was to refuse a test upon
being initially detained on the corner of Fourth and Broadway. I think the record is pretty
clear that he was properly admonished, that he had a choice of breath or a blood test. He
said I'm not going to give you either of them. He admitted that in his own testimony. But
the problem I have with it is there was no test being administered or likely to be
6
administered then. Perhaps if the officer had pulled out the . . . device and he said no I'm
not going to blow into that, it might be a little stronger case for a refusal. But there was
no ability, there was no intent at that time to give a test. And that's why I'm
concerned[, counsel,] is the time of this and the location. Saying out on the street corner,
no, I don't want to take any of your tests versus being in a lab room saying you have to
choose between that breath machine or a blood draw and saying no way, I'm not going to
give you anything. To me those are two different situations. The timing and location
[are] significantly different." (Italics added.)
After making those observations, the court found that from his reading of Eberle's
testimony, Eberle's account was credible, even in light of his admitted consumption of
alcohol (i.e., that there was a transfer when he was transported to the police station, as
part of the course of events). The court noted that such circumstances were not unusual,
and they supported a conclusion that the police report's statement by Officer Rice, that he
had transported Eberle to the station, was actually form language. From those facts, the
court continued the analysis by saying that once the other officer (the transporting
officer) took him down to the station and offered him a test, Eberle said okay. The court
made a finding that at that point, "A police officer, a different one who did not know
what happened on 4th and Broadway asked him will you take breath or a blood test?
And he said I'll take a blood test."
Under all the circumstances, the court found that the policies supported by the
statute (the need for timely results for blood alcohol levels) were satisfied here, "because
there was no delay caused by Mr. Eberle in playing the game I just described earlier and
7
delaying the breath test." Similarly, Eberle's conduct was not the type of conduct that
causes significant delay for the arresting officers in going back to work (such as drivers
who play with the machine, refuse tests, change their mind, ask if they can have a urine
test, then switch, and so forth): "None of that occurred here. What occurred here is that
when they got to the point where it was time to take the test Mr. Eberle said here is my
arm, give me a blood test."
In light of the policies of the refusal laws and the cases interpreting them, the court
disagreed with the hearing officer's analysis, and ruled that no actionable refusal to test
had taken place, such that there was voluntary compliance with the implied consent law.
The court granted the petition and set aside the suspension order. Judgment was entered
accordingly and the Department appeals the decision.
ANALYSIS
I
STANDARDS OF REVIEW; ISSUES PRESENTED
The parties do not dispute that the superior court appropriately utilized the
independent judgment test in deciding the application for writ of mandate following the
order of suspension. (Manriquez v. Gourley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1233; Fukuda
v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 817, 824 (Fukuda).) Under the independent
judgment test, the court determines whether the administrative hearing officer abused his
or her discretion because the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.
(Id. at pp. 816-817.) The administrative findings come before the superior court with a
8
" ' "strong presumption of correctness," ' " and the burden rests on the petitioner to
establish administrative error. (Id. at p. 817.)
On appellate review of the superior court's exercise of its independent judgment,
this court will sustain the court's findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.
(Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 824.) We resolve all conflicts in favor of Eberle, as the
party prevailing in the superior court, and give him the benefit of all reasonable
inferences in support of the judgment. (Pasadena Unified School Dist. v. Commission on
Professional Competence (1977) 20 Cal.3d 309, 314.) We do not substitute our
deductions regarding the record for those of the superior court. (Ibid.) " 'We may
overturn the trial court's factual findings only if the evidence before the trial court is
insufficient as a matter of law to sustain those findings. [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (Lake
v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 457 (Lake).)
In a case in which the pertinent facts are not in conflict and the only issues
presented are an interpretation of a statute or regulation, an appellate court is not bound
by the trial court's legal conclusions. (Spitze v. Zolin (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1920, 1925-
1926.) Here, however, the superior court analyzed the record, made credibility
determinations, and applied the law to the facts as established in that manner.
Accordingly, we should give the trial court appropriate deference with respect to its
views on whether the administrative findings were supported by the weight of the
evidence. (Fukuda, supra, 20 Cal.4th 805, 816-817.)
The Department challenges the judgment granting the petition on the basis that
"the facts as found by the superior court established Mr. Eberle refused to submit to a
9
chemical test within the meaning of the implied consent law. The court should decline
Mr. Eberle's invitation to make an exception to the initial refusal rule because the rule
advances the policy supporting the implied consent law and making an exception would
encourage game playing by drunk drivers."
In response, Eberle's brief explains his logic that "the absence of any linkage
between his initial refusal and any dissipation of evidence of his blood alcohol content by
the time he was ultimately tested justified the trial court's ruling below." Eberle does not
contest the validity of the arrest procedure itself, instead contending that the valid public
policies promoted by the refusal rules are not adversely implicated here, in light of the
facts as found by the lower court.
To address these issues, we first outline the policies implemented by the
administrative suspension law, as interpreted by case law. We then apply those rules to
this record.
II
ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION PROCEDURES; APPLICATION
The long-range purposes of the administrative license suspension procedures,
section 13353, have been summarized as follows: " '(1) to provide safety to persons
using the highways by quickly suspending the driving privilege of persons who drive
with excessive blood-alcohol levels; (2) to guard against erroneous deprivation by
providing a prompt administrative review of the suspension; and (3) to place no
restriction on the ability of a prosecutor to pursue related criminal actions. [Citations.]'
[Citation.]" (Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th 448, 454.)
10
In addition, the immediate purpose of this statutory scheme is to obtain the best
evidence available of blood-alcohol content. (Ellis v. Pierce (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d
1557, 1561.) Neither this purpose nor the long-range goal of the statute, to remove
impaired drivers from the road, is punitive in nature, and each is intended to facilitate the
gathering of evidence and to protect public safety. (Ibid.; see also Barrie v. Alexis (1984)
151 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1162-1163 (Barrie).)
Case law has sought to implement the purposes of section 13353 by emphasizing
the need for ready compliance with the implied consent law, section 23612. For
example, in Barrie, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1162-1163, the court stated that a
driver's initial refusal forms the basis for suspension of the driver's license under section
13353. There the court rejected a driver's argument that an order of suspension based on
a 10-minute delay in obtaining a blood test, caused by her refusal, was unjustified, even if
the delay was minimal and did not jeopardize the efficacy of the blood test. The court
said, "This begs the question because in the instant case it is the refusal not the delay that
is the significant factor." (Id. at p. 1163, citing Covington v. Department of Motor
Vehicles (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 54 (Covington) and Skinner v. Sillas (1976) 58
Cal.App.3d 591.) "Further, after the arrested driver refuses to take one of the three tests,
it is no longer required that he be given one even though he may decide he is ready to
take it. [Citation.]" (Barrie, supra, at p. 1163.)
The Department would analyze this record as showing Eberle made a belated
agreement to submit to a chemical test, which did not cure his previous refusal, and he
therefore should not be able to avoid a suspension. We disagree with this
11
characterization of the record. Rather, we believe the trial court correctly found that
Eberle's compliance with the test at the time it was made available was the significant
factor in this case. This is consistent with the principles set forth in the refusal case law,
with which the trial court was very familiar. The trial court noted for the record that it
had extensive experience in analyzing fact situations arising from the implied consent law
and administrative suspensions, and it believed that this situation was unusual, because
the decision to take the test was roughly contemporaneous with the earliest time the test
could be taken, and there was no causation of any delay through Eberle's actions. In such
a case, the policies promoted by the administrative suspension procedure were not
violated.
Several factors lead us to conclude that the trial court's view was correct. First, the
record shows that the time period involved ran from the traffic stop at 11:45 p.m. until the
blood draw occurred at 12:35 a.m., about 50 minutes later. No preliminary alcohol
screening test was offered any earlier than this blood draw at the police station, nor was it
shown that this 50-minute time period was lengthened by any actions of Eberle in
contesting the test, or in attempting to place conditions upon it. For example, Eberle did
not demand that any particular person be present to request or administer the test. (See
Covington, supra, 102 Cal.App.3d at pp. 54, 57 [motorist cannot demand that attorney be
present].) There was no available test pending at the time of the initial refusal, and thus
even the admitted delay in consenting to the test did not make any difference under all the
circumstances, with respect to the main purposes of the statute (obtaining an effective test
and keeping impaired drivers off the road). Since the purposes of the statute are not
12
mainly punitive in nature, the Department's interpretation of these facts is unduly strict.
(See Ellis v. Pierce, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1561.)
Moreover, the superior court could legitimately analyze the record and then
disagree with the hearing officer's conclusions that (1) Eberle's account of being
transported to the station by a different officer must have been less credible than the
police reports, which said that Officer Rice was the only one involved and (2) therefore
the initial refusal was fatal to Eberle's case. Rather, the court could appropriately analyze
the facts as demonstrating that no refusal took place that made any difference to the
progress of how Eberle's case was processed. The record supports a conclusion that
under these particular circumstances, the crucial moment for analyzing consent here was
when the test was actually available, regardless of the identity of the custodial police
officer at that time.
" 'We may overturn the trial court's factual findings only if the evidence before the
trial court is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain those findings. [Citation.]'
[Citations.]" (Lake, supra, 16 Cal.4th 448, 457.) Here, that would require us to conclude
that the initial refusal was dispositive, even though there was also evidence that by the
time the test offered, a chemical test, could be administered, Eberle was consenting to
one. We are unwilling to overturn the judgment on that theory, and instead believe that
the trial court correctly took into account all applicable policy considerations when it
concluded that Eberle's actions did not adversely affect the relevant events as they
occurred. This conclusion was consistent with the reasoning of the applicable case law
13
and did not controvert these important statutory purposes. We affirm the judgment
granting the petition.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs of appeal are awarded to Eberle.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.



San Diego California DUI Lawyer information provided by a top San Diego California Drunk Driving Attorney for those accused of a San Diego California DUI.



Worry-free San Diego California DUI help for San Diego California DUI court and San Diego California DMV. Complete San Diego California DUI Help to save your California license or other state license.



San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 24 years of experience. Known as the San Diego California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates 100% of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.



San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller recently spoke at the California Attorneys For Criminal Justice annual DUI seminar in Rancho Mirage, California: http://www.cacj.org/Events/forms/DUI%20Brochure%20Final.pdf . The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense attorney Rick Mueller was excellent. Rick has been asked to speak again - at the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA) DUI seminar.



Simply complete the Free San Diego California DUI Evaluation at http://www.SanDiegoDrunkDrivingAttorney.net/survey.html for your best San Diego California DUI defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege, as has been done for many good people who necessarily become San Diego California DUI Clients.






http://www.yahoo.com



California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyers:

San Diego DUI Lawyer


San Diego DUI


California DUI Attorney


San Diego DUI Help



http://www.google.com