4th DUI in 8 years for California DUI guy $110,000 bail

California DUI lawyer news

A California man was arrested on his fourth California DUI - driving under the influence charge in eight years.

Steve Ariente, 56, was stopped in downtown Morgan Hill after he was seen speeding at about 10 p.m. on Thursday, according to California DUI police.

Officer David Ray pulled over Ariente and administered field sobriety tests, which he failed, according to California DUI police.

He was arrested on suspicion of California DUI - driving under the influence of alcohol and transported to the police department for booking, according to California DUI police.

When he was being processed, officers asked him to remove his shoes and socks and when he did police said a "baggie of white powdery substance" fell from his pant leg.

Officers examined the bag and determined that it appeared to be about 1.5 grams of cocaine, California DUI police said.

Ariente had previously been convicted of California DUI - driving under the influence twice in 2000 and for California DUI in 2004, California DUI police said.

Ariente was booked into county jail and charged with possession of narcotics and four or more California DUI drunk driving offenses within 10 years, according to California DUI police. His California DUI bail was set at $110,000.

He needs a top California DUI defense attorney specialist as he is looking at a felony with state prison possibilities.

Sitting at flashing red light for 41 seconds not PC to stop

San Diego DUI lawyer news - California DUI attorney edition case

Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 689a
Criminal law -- Driving under influence -- Search and seizure -- Vehicle stop -- Officer's observation that defendant's vehicle sat at flashing red light for 41 seconds when there was no other traffic present and then drove through intersection in a safe manner created only a mere suspicion of criminal activity, not a well-founded reasonable suspicion justifying stop -- Officer had no justification to conduct safety stop where defendant was not exhibiting behavior that should be characterized as dangerous to another person or vehicle, and officer's safety suspicions that defendant was injured or vehicle was malfunctioning should have been alleviated by defendant's normal driving technique and vehicle's obvious operation in driving through intersection -- Error to deny motion to suppress

JAMES EDWARD JONES, JR., Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 00-239 AC. Lower Court Case No. 395250 W. Opinion filed August 9, 2001. An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Edward Newman, Judge. Counsel: Jason P. Gray, for appellant. Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, and Anne Wedge-McMillen, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

(Before JUDITH L. KREEGER, STANFORD BLAKE, and PETER LOPEZ, JJ.)

(STANFORD BLAKE, J.) James Edward Jones, Jr., the appellant, was convicted of driving under the influence after the trial court denied his pretrial motion to suppress all evidence derived from the initial stop. Jones appeals the trial court's decision alleging that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop. We find that there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's decision on Jones' pretrial motion to suppress.

In determining whether the officer obtained reasonable suspicion, this court follows the guidelines in State v. Russell, 659 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). ``An investigatory stop is authorized when a law enforcement officer `encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws[.]' Sec. 901.151(2), Fla. Stat. (1993). There must be a reasonable, or founded, suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. See, United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7,109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1, 10 (1989); Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1993). To justify a stop, a police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from these facts, reasonably justify the stop.'' Id. at 467.

In the case at bar, the police officer testified that at 4:19. a.m. he observed Jones' car sitting at a flashing red light for 41 seconds when there was no other traffic present. As the officer made a U-turn to pull up behind Jones' car, Jones drove through the intersection in a safe manner. The officer activated his lights and pulled Jones to the side of the road to investigate whether Jones was impaired.

This court finds that these facts create only a ``mere'' suspicion of criminal activity and not a well-founded reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See, Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993); A.H. v. State, 693 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Bush v. State, 594 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). During the officer's less than one-minute observation, Jones sat at a light and then drove safely through the intersection. In this age of cellular phones and interchangeable car cd players, a pause in driving should not lead an officer to suspect criminal activity without additional facts. The only additional fact given by the officer was that Jones drove safely through the intersection. Jones safe driving behavior does not provide the officer with the additional facts necessary to justify a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

The trial court found that there was justification for a stop based on a temporary safety stop allowable under Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975). During a safety stop, a police officer is justified in temporarily detaining an individual to conduct a safety investigation as to whether the individual is suffering from health problems or the individual's car is malfunctioning. See, Bailey, 319 So. 2d at 26. However, the case at bar distinguishes itself from the safety stop in Bailey. In Bailey the driver was exhibiting dangerous driving behavior, i.e., slight weaving, that may reasonably lead an officer to believe that the driver was impaired or the car was malfunctioning. See, Id. at 24. Here, Jones was not exhibiting behavior that should be characterized as dangerous to another person or vehicle because he was not moving and there was no other vehicle present.

In addition, even if it can be assumed that sitting at the flashing light should equate to dangerous driving behavior, the Jones' stop continues to distinguish itself from the Bailey safety stop. In Bailey the police officer had a belief that the driver was injured or the car was malfunctioning based on a three-mile observation of the car's weaving pattern prior to the stop. See, Id. Here, prior to the stop, the officer observed Jones drive safely through the intersection. At that point, the officer's safety suspicions that Jones was injured or the car was malfunctioning should have been alleviated by Jones' normal driving technique and the car's obvious operation. Therefore, the officer had no justification to conduct a Bailey safety stop.

For the above stated reasons, we hold that there were no well-founded facts to justify a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity nor, in the alternative, justification for a safety stop under Bailey. The trial court's denial of Jones' motion to suppress all evidence derived from the initial stop is reversed. (JUDITH L. KREEGER and PETER LOPEZ, JJ. concur.)


* * *

California DUI follow-up mystery to Hilton investigation

California DUI attorney news

California DUI law enforcement agencies are staying mum about some specifics surrounding the escapades of a member of the Hilton clan for whom California DUI - driving under-the-influence arrests appear to be family rites of passage.

As previously reported, Barron Hilton, 18, who lives with his parents in Beverly Hills, and is described by none other than the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department as the “younger brother of Paris Hilton,” was arrested in Malibu on Tuesday, Feb. 12, for driving under the influence.

Sheriff’s California DUI deputies had received a call that a vehicle was being driven erratically near Latigo Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway just before 8 a.m., according to California DUI lawyers.

A California DUI deputy’s report states that the driver of a second vehicle on Pacific Coast Highway reported witnessing that Hilton, driving a black Mercedes Benz, was allegedly weaving on the road and, at times, driving on the wrong side of the highway.

The California DUI witness followed the vehicle until the young scion stopped at Corral Canyon Road and PCH and got out of the car. The witness, according to the California DUI report, then told Hilton to sit on a bus bench and wait for sheriff’s deputies.

When California DUI deputies arrived, they said they conducted a California DUI / drunk driving investigation and arrested Hilton for California DUI - driving under the influence. He was also alleged to be in possession of a fake driver license.

Hilton was booked at Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station where he was held over­night, then released on California DUI bail. It was reported that Hilton had a .14 blood alcohol reading. In California, .08 is considered legal intoxication for drivers over 21. For drivers under 21, any blood alcohol level constitutes legal intoxication according to California DUI attorneys. That’s the part of the California DUI incident that involves Hilton.

That California DUI information, according to California DUI lawyers, the Lost Hills traffic liaison, is being turned over to the L.A. District Attorney’s office. Nothing has been filed with the DA's office yet, and they cannot put the matter under review until the material is received. Where things get a little murkier is with the California Highway Patrol’s part of the California DUI case, which involves Hilton’s female passenger, whose name cannot be released, according to California DUI lawyers.

Hines says this isn’t a case of celebrity coddling, but the passenger, reported to be 19, cannot be named because no arrests have been made in an ongoing investigation. Hines refuted media reports attributed to him that the passenger was Skye Peters, the daughter of film producer Jon Peters, who is sometimes described as the god-daughter of local Barbra Streisand. Skye Peters and Hilton made headlines last December when the pair were found by police at the Bel Air Hotel after being reported missing. It is being alleged that this unidentified female may have been driving the car, which is registered to a third party also unidentified, when it was involved in a collision prior to Hilton taking the wheel. If the woman is well known, one can’t tell from the name being circulated, but Hines says the possibility of a fake driver license hasn’t been ruled out. What Hines did disclose is that the victim in the alleged collision identified the female as the driver when the accident occurred at about 6:30 a.m., earlier that Tuesday morning.

According to Hines, the female driver was heading west in PCH in lane one at an unknown speed, while the victim was heading west in lane two. The woman drove into lane two and the right side mirror of the Mercedes hit the door of the victim’s Ford pickup. Hines said the woman and Hilton switched seats at some point after this incident, but when is not clear from the California DUI report.
Further complicating the California DUI case is an injury report made by a complainant the day after the California DUI arrest, which Brooks said is “puzzling” as there were five deputies at the scene when Hilton was arrested and nothing was said about an employee at the service station having being injured when they were there. The complainant alleges that he was hit by the Mercedes when it pulled into the service station. This matter is under separate investigation. This latest California DUI story intrigues California DUI attorneys.

California DUI checkpoint this friday

California DUI lawyer checkpoint news

The Costa Mesa Police Department will conduct a California DUI sobriety/license checkpoint from 6 p.m. to midnight Friday in the northbound lane of Santa Ana Avenue at 18th Street.

California DUI Police hope the California DUI checkpoint will educate the public about the dangers of California DUI driving under the influence and/or without a valid driver’s license.

The California DUI program was made possible by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

“We have been committed to saving lives by aggressively seeking out and removing impaired drivers from the roadways of Costa Mesa for nearly three decades,” Traffic Safety Bureau Officer Tony Yannizzi said.

Costa Mesa California DUI police arrested 1,062 such California DUI impaired drivers in 2007.

According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, drunk driving is the nation’s most frequently committed violent crime, with two people dying every hour from alcohol-related collisions.

California DUI checkpoint this friday

California DUI lawyer checkpoint news

The Costa Mesa Police Department will conduct a California DUI sobriety/license checkpoint from 6 p.m. to midnight Friday in the northbound lane of Santa Ana Avenue at 18th Street.

California DUI Police hope the California DUI checkpoint will educate the public about the dangers of California DUI driving under the influence and/or without a valid driver’s license.

The California DUI program was made possible by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

“We have been committed to saving lives by aggressively seeking out and removing impaired drivers from the roadways of Costa Mesa for nearly three decades,” Traffic Safety Bureau Officer Tony Yannizzi said.

Costa Mesa California DUI police arrested 1,062 such California DUI impaired drivers in 2007.

According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, drunk driving is the nation’s most frequently committed violent crime, with two people dying every hour from alcohol-related collisions.

California DUI for woman who hits cop car

A California woman who rammed into an El Dorado County sheriff's vehicle early on Wednesday morning was arrested on suspicion of California DUI/ drunken driving.

Brooke Sullivan, 26, hit deputy Rory McIntyre's patrol vehicle at about 2:15 a.m. Wednesday during a traffic enforcement stop at Highway 50 and Blue Lakes Avenue.

McIntyre was taken to Barton Memorial Hospital for injuries, Lt. Les Lovell said, and has since been released.

Sullivan was booked into the El Dorado County Jail for California DUI. Her bail was set at $25,000.

15 years to life to California DUI Death/Second-degree Murder

California DUI attorney news

California DUI man with three prior California DUI drunk driving convictions was found guilty Tuesday afternoon of second-degree murder in the death of an Arvin woman.

A California DUI jury in Kern County Superior Court also found Esteban Demecio Hernandez guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, with prior convictions; California DUI causing bodily injury; and driving with a suspended license.

According to evidence presented in California DUI court, Hernandez had a blood alcohol level of 0.24 — three times the legal limit — when the head-on crash occurred in March 2007, said a California DUI Attorney.

Accident reconstruction experts determined that Hernandez’s Mazda drifted nine feet into the southbound lane of Comanche Drive, less than a mile north of Sunset Boulevard at 8:44 p.m., colliding with a 1989 Honda driven by 40-year-old Reynalda Bazaldua.

Bazaldua was killed and her daughters, Brenda Hernandez, now 13, and Natalie Patino, now 6, received minor injuries.

All four of the people involved in the California DUI crash were wearing seat belts, according to the CHP.

Esteban Hernandez had completed an 18-month drinking-and-driving program as a condition of his probation following three prior DUI convictions, California DUI attorney prosecutors said.

“The jury reached a proper verdict,” California DUI attorney prosecutors believe. “The theory on the second-degree murder charge was not specifically that he intended to kill someone that night, but that he acted with implied malice.”

In other words, Hernandez’s priors and his completion of an anti-drunken driving course means that he was fully aware of the possible deadly consequences of his actions.

The jury deliberated about 31⁄2 hours before reaching its verdict.

Mary Flores, Bazaldua’s sister-in-law and the aunt of the girls, said “nobody wins” in a case like this.

She said she was angry when she learned that Hernandez had three chances to change, to alter his behavior — and chose not to do so.

“I just want the girls to know what they feel in their heart for their mother will always be there,” she said. “We will never forget Reyna.”

Hernandez faces a minimum prison sentence of 15 years to life, California DUI lawyers say.

California DUI sentencing is scheduled for March 25.

MLB Star Scott Spiezio has California DUI warrant

California DUI attorney news

A California DUI arrest warrant was issued for St. Louis Cardinals utilityman Scott Spiezio, who is charged with hit-and-run and driving under the influence of alcohol stemming from a night of drinking in Newport Beach, California DUI attorney prosecutors said today.

The 35-year-old Irvine resident was charged yesterday with California DUI, driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more, hit-and-run with property damage, aggravated assault, battery and assault, all misdemeanors, said the California DUI / Orange County District Attorney's Office.

Spiezio allegedly got into his 2004 BMW after leaving a bar in Newport Beach on Dec. 30, and, while speeding, cut across several lanes, crossed through oncoming traffic lanes and crashed into a fence, knocking down a fence pole and blowing out the front two tires of the car, California DUI attorney prosecutors allege.

He allegedly went to a friend and neighbor's condominium in Irvine -- disheveled and apparently injured, California DUI attorney prosecutors claim.

While the friend tried to clean up Spiezio, the former Angels player allegedly vomited in the friend's room. When the friend made a comment about it, Spiezio attacked the man, punching him repeatedly and throwing him against a wall, California DUI lawyer prosecutors believe.

Cardinals' spokesman Brian Barlow has said the team was unaware of the California DUI warrant.

Dept. of Corrections Sergeant gets California DUI

California DUI attorney news

A California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sergeant was arrested in Elk Grove on Friday night for California DUI driving under the influence, according to sheriff's California DUI arrest records released Tuesday.

Sgt. William Rollin, 39, was arrested around 10 p.m. on the 8900 block of Sierra Street in Elk Grove, according to California DUI Police Department sources.

Rollin was charged with California DUI - driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or more and California DUI / driving under the influence, California DUI arrest records show.

Sacramento County Sheriff's Department records show that Rollin was cited and released for California DUI, but Elk Grove Police Department Spokesman Officer Christopher Trim said that Rollin was transported to the Sacramento County Main Jail at 10:37 that night.

"Our policy is if they've got a DUI, unless there's an injury, we take them to the jail," California DUI jailers said.

19 year old gets 3 years for 3rd Degree burns of Injured California DUI victim

California DUI defense attorney news

A 19-year-old man who drove California DUI / drunk and injured two passengers was sentenced Tuesday to three years in prison.

Billie Ryan Atchley, 19, pleaded guilty to California DUI with bodily injury last month.

"He simply accepted it," said Atchley's California DUI defense attorney, Kyle Humphrey. "He never really wanted to fight the charges."

On Nov. 3, Atchley was driving a 1994 Pontiac west on Highway 178, missed a turn east of Oswell Street, drove up an embankment and struck a tree, according to published California DUI reports. The car flipped and caught fire.

Passenger Martin Michael Lopez was pulled from the car. Atchley and William Drakos were thrown from the vehicle. Lopez and Drakos had also been drinking, according to published California DUI reports.

Lopez suffered third-degree burns on 25 percent of his body.

Drakos is the son of Christopher James Drakos. He and his father are facing misdemeanor charges for providing alcohol to minors at their northeast Bakersfield home in 2006.

During his California DUI sentencing, Atchley apologized to the passengers and their family members, according to California DUI defense lawyer Humphrey.

"He was genuinely sorry," California DUI attorney Humphrey said. "There were no winners."

Mischa Barton starlet charged with California DUI

California DUI lawyer news

Mischa Barton has officially joined the ranks of other famous starlets charged with California DUI / Drunk Driving.

On Tuesday, the L.A. District Attorney slapped the 21-year old actress with four misdemeanor counts: California DUI - driving under the influence, driving with a blood alcohol level of .o8 or higher, driving without a license, and possession of marijuana (under an ounce).

It was last Dec. 27 that the OC star was pulled over and arrested in West Hollywood, Ca. after California DUI cops said she "was seen straddling two lanes of traffic and failed to signal when making a turn."

When California DUI deputies pulled her over, they determined that she "was an unlicensed driver and was California DUI - driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage."

Mischa is due in California DUI court on Feb. 28. Her California DUI attorney has not yet presented any statement on her behalf.

MADD bill requires interlocks in all California DUI cases

California DUI attorney news

Assemblymember Mike Feuer introduced AB 2784, which requires the installation of an ignition interlock device (IID) on any vehicle owned or operated by a person convicted of a California DUI - driving under the influence (DUI) offense. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the California Highway Patrol are naturally the sponsors of the California DUI bill.

In 2006, there were 199,147 California DUI arrests made statewide in California, which averages out to 545 California DUI arrests every day. Of those California DUI arrests, 42,849 were repeat offenders. In this same year California DUI drivers caused 37,981 California DUI collisions, resulting in the deaths of 983 people and injuries to 23,191. On average, MADD's mad science (without factual support) maintains a driver arrested for California DUI has driven under the influence 87 times before being stopped for California DUI. AB 2784 is MADD´s number one legislative priority this year. Where they come up with 87 is beyond speculation.

"AB 2784 will save lives." claims Feuer. "This bill will prevent DUI drivers from starting their vehicles when they have alcohol in their systems, while affording them the freedom to attend to their daily activities."

The California DUI bill will be heard in their first policy committees in March and April. California DUI lawyers need to bring in these folks for a reality check.

California DUI checkpoint hits "deuce" jackpot

California DUI lawyer news

Vacaville DUI crackdown results in several California DUI arrests
02/25/2008

A DUI saturation patrol in Vacaville during the weekend yielded numerous California DUI citations and California DUI arrests, including two on suspicion of drunken driving.

From 8 p.m. Saturday to 2 a.m. Sunday, California DUI officers traversed Vacaville in search of traffic violators and otherwise California DUI impaired drivers, California DUI police said.

The effort resulted in two California DUI Drunk Driving related arrests, two narcotics-related arrests, 32 citations for moving violations, the towing of five vehicles, and more.

To report suspected California DUI drunk drivers, call the Vacaville Police Department at 449-5200 or call 911.

Music Charity Dedicated to Promoting the Dangers of DUI

California DUI defense lawyer news

PR Supports Music Charity Dedicated to Promoting the Dangers of California DUI / Drunk Driving

Music vs. California DUI / Drunk Driving links up with MLC PR to raise awareness about the dangers of California DUI /drunk driving, while engaging the power of music in their cause.

Los Angeles, California

February 24, 2008

MLC PR, a sister company of M. Loring Communications, and Music vs. Drunk Driving, will be linking up in order to raise awareness about the dangers of California DUI / drunk driving. MLC PR plans point the public’s attention toward the worthy cause while promoting the charity via media support.

In September 2007, Allison “Tereska” Navarro founded Music vs. Drunk Driving (MVDD) on the basis of promoting an awareness of the dangers of California DUI - driving under the influence of alcohol. Allison Navarro, founder and CEO of Music vs. Drunk Driving says, “I started Music vs. Drunk Driving because I wanted to raise awareness to people all over the world about the dangers of drunk driving. It is one of those problems that people overlook, and do not pay much attention to, unless they are personally affected by it.”

Now, the organization is dedicated to being a source of knowledge for teens and adults, offering information on how to prevent California DUI / drunk driving and underage drinking, while also intertwining the power of mainstream and indie music. Music vs. Drunk Driving believes that music holds the key to the story for young kids and adults today – and that it should be used to communicate and influence society in a positive way. Since their beginning, MVDD has been involved in numerous events including: The Inland Empire Music Awards, The Orange County Music Awards, and Walk Like MADD. Now, the organization is continually trying to plan more anti California DUI events nationally.

“We are happy to be working with a young group of people so dedicated to their cause,” says Loring of Music vs. Drunk Driving. “In the short time they have been established, they have already accomplished feats that could take any charity years to do. Allison Navarro has done a great service to the public and music community and her passion for this charity is truly inspiring.”

Music vs. Drunk Driving is supported by many bands already, including: A Cursive Memory, Bank, Blue Monkey, Boys Like Girls, Farewell Fahrenheit, Forever The Sickest Kids, Good Charlotte, Hellogoodbye, Hemingway, Lost?, Mae, Metrostation, Mury, National Product, Never Say Forever, New Found Glory, Putman Hall, Rive, Run Away Airplane, Slapdash, Strike Twelve, The Perfect Victim, The Trade, Touch Response, Tumbledown, We Are The Fury, and many more.

Please visit www.musicvsdrunkdriving.com or www.myspace.com/musicvsdrunkdriving to learn more to help stop someone from getting a California DUI .

Police Chief faces possible California DUI

California DUI attorney news

Controversial Gustine Police chief Kris Anderson faces possible California DUI / Drunk Driving charges after being pulled over by Highway Patrol officers early Sunday in Tracy and failing a California DUI field sobriety test, a California DUI CHP spokesman confirmed.

The California DUI arrest happened after CHP officers received a call of a Jeep weaving in and out of traffic on westbound Interstate 580 near Corral Hollow Road in Tracy at 12:03 a.m. Sunday, California DUI police said.

California DUI police allege Anderson was behind the wheel of the 2002 Jeep SUV and, after being stopped by California DUI officers, Anderson failed a California DUI field sobriety test. A California DUI breathalyzer test was also conducted; the results of that California DUI test could not be released.

Anderson was arrested on suspicion of California DUI - driving under the influence of alcohol, but he was not booked into custody. Instead, Anderson was released to a family member.

Rickman said that between preparations for Saturday night's storm and light CHP staffing in the area, it was not unusual for a California DUI suspect to be released without going through the booking process. Sure.

For Anderson, the California DUI arrest marked the latest chapter in his controversial tenure as Gustine's top cop. After being hired in January 2007 to head the ten-man department, members of the Gustine Police Officers' Association unanimously called for Anderson's resignation with a no-confidence vote in July.

3 DUI Guy and Woman sought for drunk driving murder arrested

California DUI attorney news

The Fellows woman being sought on second-degree murder charges for the California DUI / drunk driving crash that killed a McKittrick man last summer was arrested by Kern County Sheriff's deputies in Bakersfield over the weekend.

Donna Kathleen Brinkman, 44, was featured in last week's Taft's Most Wanted.

Brinkman was picked up on, California DUI police said.


She is accused of driving California DUI drunk on July 28 and striking Robert Morrison, 76, who was walking across Highway 33 in McKittrick.

Brinkman is being held in the Sheriff's Lerdo pretrial facility on $250,000 bail and was scheduled to be arraigned for California DUI on Friday.

3 California DUI cases - one man

Police arrested a Petaluma man Thursday night on suspicion of DUI and hit-and-run in three separate California DUI crashes.

Police received a call around 5:20 p.m. from a resident in the 700 block of Greenbriar Circle about a man seen stumbling from his car to an apartment, California DUI drunk driving police said.

The man left the apartment and drove away before police arrived, and the caller followed him but lost sight of his vehicle, California DUI lawyers understand. The caller did not notify California DUI police, however, when the man left the apartment, California DUI attorneys heard.

California DUI Police dispatchers then received a call at 5:54 p.m. about a rear-end, hit-and-run collision at Ellis and East Washington streets. The California DUI suspect matched the description of the man seen leaving the apartment and the driver of the car that was hit followed the driver who fled in his vehicle, California DUI lawyers heard.

Dispatchers received another call a minute later about a head-on collision involving multiple vehicles and serious injuries at Payran Street and Jess Avenue. Callers said the suspect ran from the scene and that his white 1990 Nissan Maxima. The Nissan matched the car involved in the earlier reports, California DUI attorneys believe.

California DUI Police determined that 21-year-old Ciriaco Mendoza fled the collision at Ellis and East Washington streets at a high rate of sped and struck a 1994 Volvo head-on while trying to pass traffic over double yellow lines on the Payran Street Bridge.

Mendoza then tried to flee again but collided with the two vehicles he was attempting to pass, Savano said. Mendoza then fled on foot south on Jess Avenue and southbound along railroad tracks. Officer Rick Cox caught Mendoza at Lakeville and Madison streets and he was identified as the suspect involved in all three incidents, California DUI lawyers are told.

Mendoza was booked into the Sonoma County jail for California DUI felony DUI, felony hit-and-run and driving without a license. His California DUI bail is $30,000.

The 19-year-old driver of a Volvo that was struck on the bridge was the only one injured, California DUI attorneys suspect. He suffered a broken shoulder and wrist and was taken to a local hospital.

Police said the California DUI incidents illustrate the importance of reporting California DUI drunken drivers. California DUI attorneys are told Petaluma police increased DUI arrests 32 percent from 455 in 2006 to 603 in 2007 but DUI collisions still are the fifth highest cause of vehicle accidents in the city.

California DUI Alcohol involved collisions increased by 20 percent from 53 in 2006 to 64 in 2007, California DUI attorneys are told.

California DUI Cop injured trying to arrest California DUI guy

California DUI news

An American Canyon police officer was injured while arresting a man who failed to pull over during a traffic stop Thursday afternoon, California DUI police said.

At about 3:15 p.m., Morris Brice, 48, was seen swerving across all lanes of traffic on Highway 29 near Rio Del Mar, American Canyon Sgt. Craig Nickles said.

After refusing to pull over and leading police on a short chase, officers were able to stop Brice's vehicle with a spike strip and the car ended up in the center divider, California DUI police said.

Brice continued to refused to comply with the officer's orders and was Tasered by police during the California DUI arrest, California DUI police said.

During the struggle a California DUI officer injured his arm, and was treated and released later in the day, California DUI cops said.

Police found alcohol in the vehicle and arrested Brice on suspicion of California DUI - driving under the influence, resisting arrest and battery of a police officer. He was taken to a local hospital with minor injuries, California DUI police said.

DUI Detector in Your Car? California DUI Attorneys wonder.

California DUI attorney news

Saturday, 23 February, 2008

California DUI DRUNK DRIVING DETECTOR: An engineer from Nissan demonstrates a concept car designed to prevent California DUI drunk driving and falling asleep at the wheel, which has a facial recognition system to monitor the drivers eyes for detecting signs of drowsiness. The California DUI system also has a special gear stick knob with a highly sensitive odour sensor to detect alcohol in the perspiration on a drivers palm. The California DUI car was presented yesterday in Tokyo during the companys advanced technology seminar.

Coach can coach again after pleading No Contest to California DUI

California DUI attorney news

After coach Frank Lemos got into a California DUI drunken-driving crash while in Bakersfield with the Dos Palos High wrestling team, he was told he wouldn't be able to coach at the school for two full years.

But on Thursday night, the Dos Palos school board put Lemos back on the roster a year early.

"The suspension has been lifted," Dos Palos-Oro Loma Unified School District board President Paul Goodman told the audience at Thursday night's board meeting. "The decision was unanimous."

The announcement was met with applause and handshakes from four Dos Palos High School football players. The football players had previously presented a petition to the board requesting Lemos be reinstated as a coach.

"We understand coach made a huge mistake," said lineman and 11th-grader Joseph Maldonado. "He's working very hard to make things right."

Lemos had been arrested Jan. 20, 2007, in Bakersfield for California DUI after he rear-ended a taxicab about 1:30 a.m. on the Rosedale Highway, according to the California Highway Patrol. The wrestling coach had been driving a school-owned eight-passenger van by himself when he crashed about a mile away from the Clarion Hotel in Bakersfield. A chaperone and 15 Dos Palos High School wrestlers -- who were competing in a tournament at Centennial-Bakersfield High -- were in their rooms at the hotel.

The taxi driver, 44-year-old Alejandro Lopez of Bakersfield, suffered minor injuries and refused medical aid at the scene, according to a CHP report. Lemos was unharmed, arrested and booked at the Kern County Jail at 3:31 a.m. on suspicion of California DUI driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs causing bodily injury, and DUI 0.08% blood alcohol with bodily injury. The second charge was later dropped.

In April 2007, Lemos pleaded no contest to the California DUI drunken-diving charge in Kern County Superior Court. His punishment was a one-day jail sentence, a $1,729 fine, three days of community service to be served in Merced and three years probation.

Lemos -- also a full-time physical education teacher, assistant football coach and girls softball coach at the time -- was placed on paid administrative leave while the district conducted an investigation. That California DUI investigation did not find reason to keep Lemos from teaching at the high school, as he is a P.E. instructor at Dos Palos High this year -- his 18th at the school.

But -- until Thursday night -- he was not reinstated to coach, which Walker said is the reason he made the request to the board Thursday night. "He wanted to have the suspension reduced to one year."

Lemos made his request to the board in private, during the closed-session part of the meeting. Most personnel matters are dealt with in closed session, as they often involve employees' private information.

The board's action does allow Lemos to coach at the school, but it doesn't automatically put Lemos back on any sport's coaching staff.

"He'll have to go through the same process any other coach would," Walker said, meaning Lemos will need to apply for the coaching jobs and be hired with board approval.

Regardless, both parents and players at the meeting were happy to see Lemos reinstated.

"Mr. Lemos has shown how a negative can be turned into a positive," by taking responsibility for his actions, said parent Susan Foster, who also provided the board with a petition supporting Lemos signed by adults in the community.

Maldonado said some of his teammates have been "waiting since Pop Warner" to play for Lemos and head football coach Mike Sparks. "We're looking forward to a successful season."

Dead Dog case leads to escalation of california dui charges

california dui attorney news - San Diego Drunk Driving Defense Lawyer case

NORTH COUNTY california dui COURTS – A california dui court hearing for a california dui drunken-driving suspect who jumped off the San Diego-Coronado Bridge with an Oceanside police dog has been postponed until April 17.
Cory Byron, 27, survived the 200-foot fall Dec. 31, but the dog, Stryker, died.

The continuance of Byron's california dui preliminary hearing was granted by Vista Superior Court Judge Dan Goldstein yesterday after california dui prosecutors said new california dui charges will be filed against him soon. The ccalifornia dui harges are related; three women were in a car Byron allegedly hit in Oceanside with a pickup he was driving.

The california dui incident was first thought to be a noninjury, hit-and-run crash. The women, however, say they suffered significant injuries, california dui prosecutor Paul Myers said.
“They've had a lot of medical problems since then,” he said.

Byron, who lives in Vista, has been charged with animal cruelty to a police dog and evading police in a reckless manner, both felonies, as well as misdemeanor california dui drunken driving and misdemeanor hit-and-run.

Myers said outside court yesterday that the misdemeanor california dui charges probably will be raised to felony charges of hit-and-run causing injury and california dui drunken driving causing injury.

Myers also said the District Attorney's Office still intends to pursue the animal-cruelty charges.

An infrared video shot from a police helicopter shows the crucial moments leading to Byron's jump from the bridge.

Byron's california dui defense lawyer, Anthony Solare, said his client had no intention of hurting the dog and didn't know the animal had fallen off the bridge until later.

LA Cop Popped for California DUI

California dui attorney news

Perhaps not a good way for the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies to start their anti-drunk-driving campaign:

A Los Angeles Police Department traffic division officer was arrested during the weekend for investigation of California dui - driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, officials said Monday. Brian Lawrence Gossh, 27, was arrested in Van Nuys for California dui, booked into jail Sunday and then released, said LAPD Officer Karen Smith. She did not know when Gossh would be arraigned for California dui, citing an internal investigation and personnel issues as reasons for not commenting further on the California dui. No California dui attorney has given a statement on his behalf.

1 year in jail for California DUI Golf Cart Injuries

California DUI lawyer news

A 38-year-old California woman, who was drunk when she crashed a golf cart carrying a half-dozen children and an adult friend, pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of California DUI / Drunk Driving with great bodily injury.

Judith Ann Black also admitted that there were multiple victims injured in the California DUI accident, and that her blood-alcohol level was more than .15, nearly twice the legal limit, at the time of the California DUI crash.

As part of her California DUI plea agreement, Black will get no more than a year in jail, in addition to California DUI probation, when sentenced on April 4, California DUI prosecutor Arthur Chang said outside court.

Charges of DUI with injury and willful injury to a child were dismissed.

“We didn't think it was the kind of case, she was the kind of person that should go to prison,” Chang said. “We just thought it was the best deal.”

Black entered her California DUI plea before Riverside County Superior Court Judge John Monterosso at a California DUI felony settlement conference, intended to allow both sides to reach agreement in a case before moving forward to a California DUI preliminary hearing.

Black was arrested last May 26 following the California DUI crash at Canyon Lake Drive North and Lands End Place.

She had been heading home from a fiesta held in a gated community near Canyon Lake, along with another adult and six children packed into a golf cart that generally seats six adults, according to California DUI police.

Black's 7-year-old son suffered the most serious injuries. He was taken to a trauma center and has since recovered.

“We thought his injuries were more serious,” Chang said. “He had a lot of abrasions and it looked really bad, but there were no internal injuries or broken bones.”

Four other children, including Black's 6-year-old child, were treated for minor injuries.

The other adult, a friend of Black's with two of her own children aboard the cart, was uninjured, according to California DUI police.

California DUI Cop Goes on Vacation - Continuance of Trial case

California DUI lawyer case
Filed 2/20/08

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

ROBYN MAUREEN JENSEN,
Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.
B200619
(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 6BV02418)

(Craig D. Karlan, Judge)


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; application for writ of prohibition. Writ denied.

Law Offices of Jon Bryant Artz and Jon Bryant Artz for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Patrick D. Moran and Cassandra Hart-Franklin, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

_______________________




Petitioner Robyn Jensen petitions for a writ of prohibition directing the trial court to take no further action other than to dismiss the charges against her on the basis of an alleged violation of her right to a speedy trial. (Pen. Code,1 § 1382.) We deny the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jensen was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and driving with a blood alcohol content of above 0.08 percent (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), with the allegation pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23578 that her blood alcohol content exceeded 0.15 percent. On February 23, 2007, the parties agreed to set the case for trial on March 22, 2007.

On March 21, 2007, the prosecution filed and served by fax a motion to continue the trial, listing the basis for the request as the fact that “Officer Tanner [the arresting officer] is out of town on pre-scheduled vacation returning April 16, 2007 and is not available to testify at the Jury Trial set for March 22, 2007.” On the following day, the day that the trial was supposed to begin, the prosecution asked for a continuance of the trial on the same basis, and Jensen objected on the ground that the vacation of a police officer is not good cause for the continuance of a trial past the statutory time period set forth in section 1382.

Argument was held on the continuance motion on March 29, 2007, the final day in the statutory period for Jensen to be tried. The parties stipulated that: a subpoena was issued by the District Attorney’s office for Officer Tanner on February 27, 2007, and was received by a Beverly Hills Police Department representative on that date; that Officer Tanner was not personally served with the subpoena and that the cadet responsible for serving the officer just left it in the officer’s box; and that Officer Tanner left on vacation on or about March 21, 2007. The deputy district attorney reported that on March 21 she received the subpoena back with a notation stating that the officer was on vacation, and that she confirmed with the Beverly Hills Police Department that the officer was on vacation.

The trial court found that there was good cause to continue the trial and that the prosecutor had exercised due diligence in seeking the attendance of Officer Tanner at trial. After subsequent proceedings, this petition for a writ of prohibition followed. We issued an order to show cause.

DISCUSSION
To establish good cause for a continuance because of the unavailability of a witness, a party must show that he or she “exercised due diligence to secure the witness’s attendance, that the witness’s expected testimony was material and not cumulative, that the testimony could be obtained within a reasonable time, and that the facts to which the witness would testify could not otherwise be proven.” (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1171, relying on Owens v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 238, 250-251 (Owens).) We review the trial court’s ruling on the continuance motion for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Shane (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 196, 203 (Shane); People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 852.)

Cases concerning continuances sought because a material witness is unavailable fall generally into two categories: cases in which the witness was subpoenaed and cases in which the witness was not subpoenaed. When a witness was served with a subpoena but fails to appear as commanded, there is usually good cause for a continuance. “To penalize and dismiss the case of a litigant who has no advance knowledge of a witness’ default is unreasonable and unwarranted. We think a subpoenaed material witness’ failure to appear for trial may constitute good cause under section 1382 for the continuance of a trial beyond its statutory period.” (Gaines v. Municipal Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 556, 560 (Gaines).) When a witness is not under subpoena, his or her absence generally does not constitute good cause for the continuance of a trial (Baustert v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1277-1279 (Baustert) [after prosecutor released police officer from subpoena that required presence on trial dates that conflicted with officer’s planned vacation, prosecutor could not show due diligence and good cause for a continuance]; Caputo v. Municipal Court (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 412, 419 [no good cause where prosecutor made no effort to subpoena officer before he left on vacation, despite knowing of vacation plans]; Pickett v. Municipal Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 1158, 1162-1163 [no good cause for continuance based on the prosecutor’s mere belief that several witnesses might be out of town or teaching on the trial date where no attempt was made to locate and subpoena those witnesses, as “[t]he failure to attempt to secure the attendance of a witness for whom a continuance is sought indicates a lack of due diligence”]; Cunningham v. Municipal Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 153 (Cunningham) [prosecutor knew officer was going on vacation but neglected to subpoena him before he left; failure to subpoena police officer precluded a finding of due diligence].)

This distinction between subpoenaed witnesses and unsubpoenaed witnesses rests on the question of due diligence. A prosecutor who issues subpoenas is exercising the requisite due diligence in securing the attendance of witnesses at trial, while a prosecutor who does not issue subpoenas has not made sufficient effort to ensure their presence. (Gaines, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 561 [“the prosecutor exercised due diligence in subpoenaing his witnesses for trial, and was not required to employ any additional mode of process, either formal or informal”].) As the Baustert court explained, there is no due diligence, and therefore, no good cause for a continuance where “the People did not attempt to subpoena the witnesses to attend on the dates set for trial, but instead moved to continue the trials to times more convenient for the witnesses.” (Baustert, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1278.)

In light of this case law, a critical inquiry here in determining whether the prosecution demonstrated good cause for the requested continuance is whether this police officer was served with a subpoena. Jensen argues that Officer Tanner was not properly served, because he was not given the subpoena by the agent of the Beverly Hills Police Department. Jensen, however, stipulated that the subpoena “was received by a [member] of the Beverly Hills Police Department in charge of issuing the subpoenas on or about February 27th of ’07. And the procedure is that after a representative of Beverly Hills Police Department receives our subpoena, then they personally serve or put [it] in the officer’s box, that subpoena.’ This appears to comply with section 1328, subdivision (c)’s requirement that “If any peace officer . . . is required as a witness before any court or magistrate in any action or proceeding in connection with a matter regarding an event or transaction which he or she has perceived or investigated in the course of his or her duties, a criminal subpoena issued pursuant to this chapter requiring his or her attendance may be served either by delivering a copy to the peace officer personally or by delivering two copies to his or her immediate superior or agent designated by his or her immediate superior to receive the service . . . .” (Italics added.)

Section 1328, subdivision (c) describes what is supposed to happen after the subpoena is served by delivery to the officer’s immediate superior or designated agent: “If service is made upon the immediate superior or agent designated by the immediate superior, the immediate superior or the agent shall deliver a copy of the subpoena to the peace officer as soon as possible and in no event later than a time which will enable the peace officer to comply with the subpoena.” (Italics added.) This provision suggests that for the purpose of this subdivision, service is complete upon receipt of the subpoena by the superior or the designated agent, even though the actual delivery to the officer has not yet occurred. Applying this subdivision, it appears that the prosecutor did exactly what she was supposed to do under the law: only days after the trial date was set, with weeks remaining until the trial date, she caused the subpoena to be transmitted to the Beverly Hills Police Department, where it was accepted. Service was complete at this point, at least with respect to the responsibilities of the attorney issuing the subpoena. (§ 1328, subd. (c).)

It appears that the police department then failed to ensure that a copy of the subpoena was delivered “to the peace officer as soon as possible and in no event later than a time which will enable the peace officer to comply with the subpoena.” (§ 1328, subd. (c).) Contrary to Jensen’s contention, this apparent failure cannot reasonably be charged to the district attorney. Just as “counsel who prosecute or defend a criminal cause are not required to anticipate a police witness’ disobedience of a subpoena” (Gaines, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 561), they similarly cannot be expected to anticipate that the police department will fail to properly deliver a subpoena that has been served upon it and accepted by the department in accordance with statute. Indeed, to hold otherwise would prevent attorneys from relying on the subpoenas they issue, require them to supervise internal police department procedures over which they have no legal control, or “demand that prosecutors [and other counsel] become clairvoyants.” (Shane, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 205.) In order to establish due diligence, attorneys would be required to personally contact every police officer served with a subpoena pursuant to section 1328, subdivision (c) and confirm his or her actual receipt of the served subpoena. We cannot imagine that when the Legislature enacted this procedure ostensibly to streamline service of subpoenas on peace officers, it actually intended to create a more onerous mechanism by which counsel issuing subpoenas to peace officers would be required to monitor the police department’s practices for distributing subpoenas and contact every peace officer who is subpoenaed to verify that he or she received the subpoena. The Court of Appeal has declined to impose additional due diligence requirements on counsel beyond serving subpoenas to compel witnesses’ attendance at trial. Service of the subpoena is the responsibility of the attorney, and once service was effected, counsel is “not required to employ any additional mode of process, either formal or informal” to ensure the witness’s availability or attendance. (Gaines, at p. 561.)

Jensen argues that even if the subpoena was served, the police officer’s failure to appear at trial is attributable to the prosecutor. This is not the law. “If a police officer disregards a subpoena issued on behalf of either the prosecution or the defense, he defaults as a witness and not as an agent of counsel. Although a police officer is usually employed and paid by some public entity, so is the prosecutor, the public defender, even the judge who presides, and the mere fact of public employment does not make a police witness a judicial officer (Pen. Code, § 1050) or make him an agent of the prosecutor with authority to bind the State of California on the matter of speedy trial.” (Gaines, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d. at p. 561.)

We readily recognize that the vacation of a police officer is not, by itself, good cause for continuing a case beyond the statutory time period. Cunningham, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at pp. 155-156; Baustert, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1277.) Vacation or no vacation, the party seeking a continuance has the burden of showing the existence of the five factors that establish good cause for the continuance. (Baustert, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1279 [“the fact that a witness plans to be on vacation cannot alone constitute good cause for a continuance past a section 1382 deadline without a showing by the party requesting the continuance that the five Owens [supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 250-251] criteria are met.”].) Here, the trial court properly did not consider the vacation status of the officer as good cause by itself, instead determining whether good cause was shown “on a case-by-case basis, based upon a number of factors, including the ‘prior commitments of all witnesses, including police officers.’” (Brown v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 260, 266.) The trial court evaluated a situation in which a prosecutor promptly issued her subpoena upon the setting of the trial date. Because of the conduct of the Beverly Hills Police Department, the prosecutor was not informed of the officer’s unavailability until the day before trial, at which point the officer was already on vacation and unavailable. Here, the statutory provisions, though designed to simplify the process of serving subpoenas on peace officers, instead created a complicated and unusual situation in which a police officer could be legally served with a subpoena and yet not be aware of that service, thus going on vacation apparently without knowing that he was defying a subpoena;2 and a prosecutor, secure in her knowledge that she had properly and timely subpoenaed her central witness, could be surprised the day before the trial when the Beverly Hills Police Department finally notified her that the officer was unavailable, at which point in time she no longer had the option of requesting that the trial date be advanced to accommodate the witness’s schedule and could only request a continuance.

Under these unusual circumstances, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the prosecutor had demonstrated good cause for a continuance. The prosecutor fulfilled her responsibilities with respect to the subpoena and ensured that the officer was served within the language of section 1328, subdivision (c). Due diligence requires exactly what was present here, “a genuine attempt to secure a witness’s attendance in court on the date set for trial, notwithstanding the witness’s plans to be on vacation.” (Baustert, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1278.) The prosecutor was not informed by the police department of the officer’s unavailability until the day before the trial began, after the police officer had already left the country on vacation, leaving her with no alternative but to request a continuance. As the subpoenaed officer was the arresting officer in this driving under the influence case, there is no question that his testimony was material and not cumulative, and that the facts to which he would testify could not otherwise be proven. The testimony could also be obtained within a reasonable time, as the officer’s anticipated return was April 16, 2007. Accordingly, we cannot discern any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling that good cause existed to justify a short continuance beyond section 1382’s statutory time frame for trying these misdemeanor charges.

DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. The order to show cause is discharged. Upon finality of this opinion, the stay of further proceedings in the superior court is vacated.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

WOODS, J.



1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.



2 There is no evidence in the record that Officer Tanner knew of the subpoena before he departed on vacation

Hit California DUI Cop Car? Go to Jail for Felony DUI

California DUI lawyer news

BANNING California DUI - A suspected California DUI / drunk driver was arrested Monday night after running from California DUI police, sideswiping a California DUI patrol car and refusing to put his hands up even after his California DUI vehicle became stuck in a field. Levon Bruke, 23, was arrested on suspicion of felony evasion, assault with a deadly weapon, California DUI / Drunk Driving, hit and run, reckless driving and driving on the wrong side of the road.

Bruke was driving on the wrong side of the road at 9:11 p.m. in the 5000 block of W. Ramsey Street when officers tried to pull him over, according to a Banning California DUI police.

Bruke continued to drive slowly through intersections and slid off the road at Sunrise Avenue, knocking over a street sign and getting his vehicle stuck, California DUI police said.

He then drove toward California DUI officers and between the curb and a patrol car, where his car became wedged. Bruke ignored orders to put his hands up and drove through a fence into a dirt field, according to California DUI lawyers.

After getting his vehicle stuck in the field, Bruke went into reverse and hit a block wall and California DUI officers were able to take him into custody. No California DUI attorney has spoken on his behalf yet.

Increased California DUI penalties under proposed bill

California DUI lawyer news - new legislation?

Assemblyman John J. Benoit, R-Bermuda Dunes, Tuesday introduced a California DUI bill increasing California DUI penalties for manslaughter when driving under the influence and closing loopholes creating inconsistent penalties for California DUI - driving under the influence.

AB 2073 would target five California DUI areas:

Manslaughter: Under current California DUI law, an individual driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs / California DUI who causes a victim to suffer great bodily injury can receive a maximum six-year state prison sentence. However, a person driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs and causes the death of a California DUI victim can receive a maximum four-year California DUI sentence. The California DUI bill resolves the disparity by increasing the maximum California DUI sentence to six years.

Repeat California DUI Offenders: AB 2073 makes any California DUI defendant with a prior felony California DUI conviction ineligible for probation and adds a mandatory three years onto subsequent California DUI convictions. This California DUI addresses the issue of repeat offenders, who -- despite alcohol abuse education, fines, loss of driving privilege, and auto insurance penalties -- continue to to engage in criminal reckless behavior, according to Benoit.

California Drunk Boating: When someone is charged with California BUI - boating under the influence, their prior California DUI convictions can be used to enhance the penalty for BUI and be treated as a second or third California DUI offense. However, the converse is not true when dealing with someone charged with a California DUI with a prior BUI. AB 2073 would allow prosecutors to enhance California DUI charges if there are prior BUI Convictions.

California DUI Blood Tests: Under current California DUI law, a person arrested for California DUI - suspicion of driving under the influence has the choice of submitting to their choice of a blood, breath or urine test. However, the quantifiable amount of drugs cannot be determined in a urine sample. Removing a urine test as an option will assist the prosecution of drugged drivers, according to Benoit.

Conforming BUI and DUI Statutes of Limitations: In 2004, the Legislature passed a law lengthening the statute of limitations for qualifying DUI priors from seven to 10 years. The bill would amend the Harbors and Navigation Code so the statute of limitations for BUIs is similarly lengthened to 10 years, reflecting the seriousness of the DUI offenses and ensuring that repeat California DUI offenders receive the appropriate treatment and punishment, Benoit's office said.

The California DUI bill was introduced at the behest of the California District Attorneys Association, according to Kyle Packham, an aide to Benoit.

No opposition has surfaced yet to AB 2073, but Packham said it could draw opposition from California DUI public defenders opposed to longer sentences for their California DUI clients.

"With eight years of experience in DUI enforcement, making over 1,000 arrests, I have seen how taking the wheel while under the influence of alcohol and drugs creates daily tragedies in our communities,'' said Benoit, a former California Highway Patrol commander.

"The worst anguish is the loss of a loved one because of someone's drunk driving. My bill creates stiffer penalties for DUI manslaughter, which is actually less severely punishable than causing great bodily injury. My bill is a significant public safety measure that will better protect drivers on California streets, highways, and harbors.''


California DUI lawyers need to look at this.

7 to 10 year expansion analysis of California DUI prior convictions

"Ex Post Facto" Analysis of a California DUI Conviction Now Within 10 Years of a Subject California DUI Offense

At issue in California is the jurisprudential brick and mortar of the criminal justice system: The people’s right to a government that abides by the laws it both establishes and enforces. Constitutional temperance requires that the repugnance of an alleged crime cannot justify the departure from the bedrock of the United States Constitution. The Ex Post Facto Clause operates to constrain legislative power by demanding fundamental fairness illuminated by governmental restraint.

Prior to January 1, 2005, the State of California assured defendants convicted of Vehicle Code §23152(a)(b); §23153(a)(b) or Vehicle Code §23103 pursuant to §23103.5 (Alcohol related Reckless Driving) they would only be subject to having DUI convictions used to increase consequences of separate convictions of DUI were they to have had separate offenses, which resulted in convictions, within seven years from the date of a new offense. After the seven year period elapsed, they were no longer subject to having a DUI offense aggravated because the period of disability had elapsed. In other words, they were able to come out from under a cloud and walk in the sunshine.

The issue of whether an extension of a disability period was a violation of Ex Post Facto rules was first raised and rejected in People v. Sweet (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 78where the Court held that the change from the five year prior statute to the seven year statute was not an Ex Post Facto violation. The same Court of Appeal that decided Sweet, re-affirmed it in People v. Forrester (Gilbert, J.) That Court also issued the decision in People v. Wohl (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 270 (Gilbert, J.) (Applied reasoning of Sweet to felony prosecution) The flaws in the original Sweet opinion were revisited in Wohl and recently in Forrester which also failed to properly analyze the impact of Stogner.

Simply stated, Forrester, like Sweet held that increased punishments for DUI recidivists attached to the latest offense, not the prior offense, and as a result, were not retroactive or Ex Post Facto because the increased punishment was for the new case which occurred after the passage of the amendments to Vehicle Code §23540 et.seq. Some might call this sophistry. Others might argue that the Forrester/Sweet Court’s view of Ex Post Facto is entirely too narrow because that court’s analysis of retroactivity was anchored by its analogy to general recidivist case law. The analogy is imperfect and the cases relied upon are readily distinguishable because the recidivist statutes relied upon did not contain legislatively granted time limitations. DUI multiple offender statutes impose another, wholly independent element which requires that a defendant commit the predicate offense and a subsequent offense within the time originally defined by the legislature. Once that time had passed, any amendments to such legislation effects a change in that time limitation and is retroactive. The lynchpin of Sweet’s Ex Post Facto analysis is the notion that the extension of the disability period is not “retroactive” because it is based solely on the new violation that occurred after the change in the legislation. The fact that the previous, separate offense is an element of the new offense (See People v. Wohl, supra at 274)(Court assumed this “for sake of argument”) undermines Sweet’s logic as does an examination of the cases relied upon for that notion. The opinion cites People v. Venegas, (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 814, 823 and People v. Weaver, (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 119, 125 for the proposition that a statute does not function retroactively “merely because it draws upon facts antecedent to its enactment for its operation.” Sweet, supra at 571. Weaver cites Venegas for this proposition and Venegas cites Abrams v. Stone (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 33, 40-41. Abrams is inapposite because it is a civil case and constitutional principles of Ex Post Facto simply do not apply. (See Calder, supra.) Abrams in fact supports Petitioner’s contention that application of the amended Vehicle Code §23540 to his time barred separate offense is retroactive as understood by Justice Chase in Calder. The Court noted:

This meaning of the word 'retroactive' applies both to the rule which disfavors the construction of a statute as having retroactive application (82 C.J.S., Statutes §§ 412, 414, p. 980 et seq.), and to the retroactive character of a statute as grounds of possible unconstitutionality. (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 414 et seq., p. 856 et seq.)‘ ( Holt v. Morgan, 128 Cal.App.2d 113, 116, 117). We fail to perceive what different legal effect was created by the statutory amendments here in question . . . . Abrams v. Stone, supra, at 40. (Emphasis added)

Thus, while it may be true that a statute is not retroactive in operation merely because it draws upon facts antecedent to its enactment for its operation, it is a retroactive law if its operation creates a different legal effect than that which occurred before. In California, the law at issue is both retrospective and retroactive. It is retrospective in that it refers in its operation to events, specifically separate DUI offenses, which occurred in the past. It is retroactive, in that it changes the conditions attached to some of those separate convictions by including time barred convictions which have expired prior to the amendments to Vehicle Code §23540 et. seq.

At the time of the California DUI Defendant’s predicate offense, he or she was assured that that offense would count as a sentence enhancement for no more than seven years. This provision, looked at from the perspective of this offense, is better termed a sunset clause. At some point in the future, the legislature has promised that the sun will set on that conviction, and Petitioner will be finally free from its shadow. Seven years then elapsed, and that offense, by grace of the legislature, ceased to count as a prior offense for any subsequent offenses. Now, the legislature, by passage of a new statute, seeks to extend the sunset clause that by its own terms has expired. In this way, changing the action of a law which has already by its own terms concluded its effect can not be correctly termed anything but retroactive.

The fact that the changed statute alters the consequences of a limitation period that had elapsed is the critical factor that distinguishes and makes inapposite the cases Sweet used for authority that the penalty attaches to the new crime and not the previous ones. The Court in Sweet cites to Gryger v. Burke (1948) 334 U.S. 728, and In re Foss (1974) 10 Cal.3d 910 for that proposition, but in both cases the recidivist statutes in issue had no sunset provisions, so there had never been a situation where the defendant had been sentenced under one provision, served that provision to completion, and then had the provision reimposed. Even in Venegas, supra, the court dealt with the passage of an entirely new law which affected the defendant, rather than one in which the defendant knew of, and endured his disability to completion, only to have it revived. Furthermore, Sweet’s reliance on People v. Lujan (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp 15, is misplaced since Lujan dealt with an entirely different situation, that of the renumbering of the DUI offenses and the creation of the per se DUI offense. Nor does People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, shed any further light on the fundamental issue in this case, since Snook dealt only with the order of the defendant’s convictions relative to each other, not relative to changes in the law.

In contrast, the opinion in Calder explicitly recognized that Ex Post Facto principles may be violated by penal enhancements such as those applied in Vehicle Code §23540 et.seq. Justice Peterson noted:

[I]t appears, that ex post facto laws have an appropriate signification; they extend to penal statutes, and no further; they are restricted in legal estimation to the creation, and, perhaps, enhancement of crimes, pains and penalties. The enhancement of a crime, or penalty, seems to come within the same mischief as the creation of a crime or penalty; and therefore they may be classed together.” Calder, supra, at 697. (Emphasis added)

In Weaver v. Graham, supra the Court addressed whether a change to prisoners’ abilities to earn good time credits could be applied, not to deprive prisoners of good time credits already earned, but to affect the reciprocity of inmates’ good time credits as reward for good behavior after the law’s effective date. The Court distilled from the web of ex post facto jurisprudence the essence of the inquiry, to wit: “The critical question is whether the law changes the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date.” Id. at 31. (Emphasis added) Here, unlike general recidivist statutes, the offending legislation changes the legal consequences of the predicate offense by extending the clock on its sunset provision.

Amicus, relies on Justice Chase’s original characterizations of what are Ex Post Facto violations enumerated as Category (2) and Category (4) in Calder v. Bull, (1798) 3 U.S. (Dall) 389. These two Categories of Ex Post Facto were analyzed and explained in Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607, which held that a statute which revived a time-barred prosecution was a violation of Ex Post Facto because it (1) aggravated the original crime and made it greater than it was when committed because the defendant is subject to “punishment that the courts lacked the power to impose” before the amendment (Calder Category 2) (Stogner, supra at 615); and (2) it alters rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony “than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the offender” (Calder Category 4) (Stogner v. California supra at 612).

As applied to Forrester, the amending legislation aggravated his original 1997 offense and made it more burdensome because it extended the disability period attached to it after it had expired - raising it from the dead and depriving him of a vested defense, thereby subjecting Appellant to “punishment that the courts lacked the power to impose”.

The amending legislation changed the quantum of evidence necessary to establish the existence of a necessary quasi-element of the felony offense, namely the existence of a prior conviction for an offense which occurred within the proscribed period.

The amending legislation altered the rules of evidence as they pertained to proof of the 1997 offense. After December 31, 2004 a District Attorney could not have proven that person’s prior DUI came within the meaning of Vehicle Code §23550. Thus, because no “quantum of evidence” could have provided the requisite proof, the amending legislation which became effective on January 1, 2005 violates Ex Post Facto rules if applied retroactively.

Sweet and its progeny must be rejected in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Stogner, supra and the amendment to Vehicle Code §23550 must be deemed to be a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause when applied to prior offenses that were more than seven years old on January 1, 2005. As noted by the venerable Justice Learned Hand in Falter v. United States (1928) 23 F.2d 420, 425-426, cert denied, 277 U.S. 590:

Certainly it is one thing to revive a prosecution already dead, and another to give it a longer lease of life. The question turns upon how much violence is done to our instinctive feelings of justice and fair play. For the state to assure a man that he has become safe from its pursuit, and thereafter to withdraw its assurance, seems to most of us unfair and dishonest. But, while the chase is one, it does not shock us to have it extended beyond the time first set, or, if it does, the stake forgives it. Id. at 426.

The same can be said for extending the period of disability which subjects a citizen convicted of DUI to greater penalties for future violations. If that period of disability has lapsed, it can no longer be legislatively revived without violating the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws. The general rule is that, where a complete defense has arisen under a statute limiting a criminal action, it cannot be taken away by a subsequent repeal or amendment. See, People v. Chesebro, (1990) 185 Mich.App. 412,416, 463 N.W.2d 134, 135-136; cited with approval by the Court in Stogner at 618.

The harm that would be manifested if the amending legislation could be applied to a person's 1997 DUI conviction is of the kind that the Ex Post Facto Clause seeks to avoid. By “its own rules” (see Carmell v. Texas (2000) 529 US. 513, 533), the legislature advised defendant that his prior DUI conviction could have an enhancement effect for seven years. After that period, not before, the legislature changed those rules. Since the legislature thereby acted after it had assured defendant that he “had become safe from its pursuit,” the legislative amendment would “seem . . . unfair and dishonest.” (Falter v. United States, supra, 23 F.2d at 426.) Further, since it did not act until the earlier limitations period had lapsed, the legislature deprived defendant of “fair warning” (Weaver v. Graham (1981) 450 U.S. 24, 28) of continued criminal liability after he could otherwise have assumed he had left behind the disabilities associated with his prior DUI conviction. As noted in Stogner, “[A] Constitution that permits such an extension, by allowing legislatures to pick and choose when to act retroactively, risks both ‘arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation’ and erosion of the separation of powers . . .” Id. at 612.

How should courts in California interpret Stogner? The court in Forrester continues to perpetuate the flawed analysis of Sweet by stubbornly insisting that the retroactive increase in the look back period does not change the effect of the original predicate offense making its terms more onerous to a criminal defendant.

Stogner teaches us that retroactively reviving time barred statutes of limitations is Ex Post Facto when it aggravates the original crime or makes it greater than when committed. Applying the amendments to Vehicle Code §23540 et.seq. to offenders who had a predicate offense more than 7 but less than 10 years prior to the new offense undeniably expands the length of the “look back” or “wash out” periods for the predicate offense beyond the time that the legislature, by it’s grace, applied to this offense. The retroactive application of Vehicle Code §23540 to a person thereby aggravates his or her predicate crime and inflicts greater punishments where the offender was not, by law subject to them.

Real California DUI Court in Schools on Cable

California DUI attorney news

REAL California DUI Drunk Driving COURT IN SCHOOLS CALIFORNIA CHANNEL CABLE BROADCAST

TWO California DUI VIEWING OPPORTUNITIES:
FEBRUARY 21, 2008 10:15AM 11:45AM
MAY 1, 2008 (LAW DAY) 9:00AM 10:30AM

Teen driving and California DUI driving under the influence (DUI) are leading causes of death among teenagers. This live interactive statewide cable television broadcast will allow middle and high school students to view a live California DUI / Drunk Driving sentencing proceeding and learn about the consequences of California DUI -driving under the influence.

During this California DUI broadcast, students will:
View and participate in an actual California DUI sentencing
Have an opportunity to ask questions of the California DUI judge, California DUI attorneys and the California DUI defendant involved
Learn California DUI facts and statistics about DUIs
Know the California DUI consequences of a DUI on individual drivers, crash victims,
and local communities

REGISTER TODAY!
School Registration & Curriculum:
http://www.register123.com/web/102069

The California Channel Cable Listing by County:
http://www.calchannel.com/carriage.htm

For more California DUI information, please contact program staff:
Danielle Tate, 415-865-7677; danielle.tate@ jud.ca.gov or
Kelly Parrish, 415-865-8018; kelly.parrish@ jud.ca.gov

California DUI programPresented in coordination with the California Office of Education; AOC Education Division/Center for Judicial Education and Research; and California Channel. Funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety

California DUI felony accident - 2 teenagers die

California DUI attorney news

The California DUI CHP is investigating a double fatal California DUI accident that claimed the lives of two teenagers and injured two more Saturday night.

California DUI Investigators said three factors-speed, alcohol and inexperience, combined to create a deadly situation.

Shortly before midnight Saturday an SUV with five teens inside veered out of control on a narrow country road near Kerman, killing Melina Sandoval,19, of Madera and Thomas Nazaroff,14, of Kerman.

The CHP said the car was speeding down Mckinley Avenue near Sycamore when the front passenger grabbed the steering wheel and jerked it to the right, causing the driver to lose control.

The SUV flipped several times, ejecting both Sandoval and Nazaroff, who were riding in the backseat, from the car. The driver and another passenger suffered minor and moderate injuries and were taken to community Regional Medical Center.

California DUI Investigators said none of the three teens in the backseat were wearing their seat belts at the time of the California DUI accident.

It was also determined that all five, including the driver, had been drinking.

Because of the circumstances surrounding the California DUI accident, the driver could be facing felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter charges.

Central Coastal California DUI Cops Overreact

California DUI attorney news

A Santa Maria teenager is in serious trouble after California DUI police say he tried to evade California DUI cops.

Santa Maria California DUI police say 19-year-old Lucio Mendez took off when they were trying to pull him over for a traffic stop on the 1400 block of Claremont Street.

They claim he got in a California DUI accident and tried to run away before he was caught.

He is being charged with felony evading, hit and run, and California DUI - driving under the influence.

No Headlights + Hit Cop Car Head-on = Felony California DUI

California DUI lawyer news

A Los Angeles police sergeant whose patrol car collided head-on with that of an alleged California DUI / drunken driver whose headlights were off was released from a hospital Monday after being checked out for minor injuries.

"He was a little banged up, but he's home now," said a California DUI official.

The name of the officer involved in the wreck was withheld.

Carlos Revlorio, 25, was booked on suspicion of felony California DUI / drunken driving and locked up in lieu of $100,000 bail.

The California DUI collision on San Fernando Road just north of Osborne Street occurred about 10:30 p.m. Sunday, just a short distance from the Foothill Station.
The police car was going north on San Fernando when it was struck head-on by a Toyota Camry with its headlights off, knocking the officer's car into two parked cars, without causing injuries to the passengers in the California DUI driver's car.

The suspect had just made an illegal U-turn mid-block.

The man then failed a California DUI sobriety test and was booked was for California drunk driving / DUI .

California DUI attorneys deal with officers going after 1,000 DUI arrests

California DUI attorney have to deal with officers who have been provided incentives for most DUI arrests, like this officer who racked up his 1,000th DUI arrest.



This driver's DUI blood-alcohol level alone would have made the arrest stand out.

Terry Lee Andrews, 57, who was taken to the Bayfront Medical Center after crashing into another vehicle, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.376, more than four times the level at which a driver is presumed impaired or DUI. He had been drinking at a club before he made a U-turn into traffic.

For Officer Robbie Arkovich, the DUI arrest marked a personal milestone. It was his 1,000th DUI arrest, the most department veterans can remember by an officer.

Arkovich joined the department's DUI driving-under-the-influence unit about nine years ago. It didn't take long for him to log his first DUI drunk driving arrest.

Then Arkovich nabbed another DUI driver. And another DUI . Before long, he was racking up DUI arrests the way baseball Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn collected hits.

Arkovich, 41, shrugs off the DUI statistics. He says plenty of other officers would have reached that DUI number if they had stuck with the job.

But most DUI officers don't stay.

Instead, they leave the unit for other jobs after a few years, worn down by having to deal with drunks every night and having to sacrifice their nights and weekends.

Some DUI people Arkovich arrests send him thank-you cards, telling him he helped change their lives. Most DUI people don't.

"I would definitely say that most people are not happy when we arrest them," Arkovich said. "It's the minority of people who understand that they got themselves in trouble."

As a young police officer, Arkovich rode along with officers on the DUI task force. He admired the work they did because it produced DUI results.

But Arkovich felt the DUI unit took people who could hurt others off the streets. The officers saved lives.

"It's one of those areas in police work where you really get to help people," Arkovich said.

So when a DUI opening came up in 1998, he applied and got a spot.

"I don't know anyone who has stayed for as long as he has," said Sgt. Keith Peaton, who oversees the DUI unit.

Arkovich's workday begins at 6 p.m. and runs until 4 a.m. He works Wednesdays through Saturdays, a lot of holidays, and has trouble remembering the last time he had a New Year's off.

Usually, he has DUI paperwork waiting for him when he arrives. Sometimes, a DUI arrest is already in progress. The department's unit has a DUI conviction rate in the high 90th percentile.

Arkovich is lean and trim. He talks in crisp, complete sentences and can delve into an explanation of case law in the middle of a DUI arrest. He rarely drinks.

On a recent Thursday night, he headed out with Officer Terri Nagle, who was back from a six-month medical leave.

While Nagle was arresting a DUI drunken driver, the woman had fallen and broken Nagle's leg.

Many DUI drunken drivers make for difficult DUI arrests. Nagle said some act polite and friendly, then explode as soon as the DUI handcuffs come out. They kick and punch, flail and spit. One woman in a cruiser managed to angle her head just so to spit on Nagle after her DUI arrest.

Arkovich's DUI cruiser has suffered, too. A few weeks ago, a young DUI man he arrested became so angry that he managed to kick out a rear window.

The DUI job is conducive to dark humor. A few years ago, the DUI task force began writing down funny quotes on an office board.

This is so unfair. I'm the designed driver, said one DUI woman, who was more than twice the legal limit of 0.08.

I'm a functional Xanax user, said another DUI .

As they headed out for new DUI arrests, and possible additions to the board, Arkovich and Nagle watched for anything that looked suspicious: a car without headlights, a driver swerving wildly, cars stopping in the middle of the intersection or driving slowly.

"Let's go fishing," Arkovich said, as they cruised through the 34th Street corridor, a hot spot on Thursday nights.

This time, the DUI arrest came to them.

An employee at a McDonald's called DUI police after a man in the drive-through reeked so strongly of alcohol that the fumes nearly made her gag.

When Arkovich arrived, a few other DUI officers were there and had taken away a large kitchen knife the man had stuffed in his pants.

Arkovich walked up to the driver, Bert Martin, a bulky 52-year-old.

"How much have you had to drink, sir?" Arkovich asked.

"Not that much ... four cans," Martin replied.

Then, he elaborated, while swaying from side to side: four 32-ounce cans of Miller.

The first DUI field sobriety test Arkovich gave him tested whether Martin could follow a red light with his eyes without jerking too quickly from side to side, a symptom of DUI intoxication. He couldn't.

Then, Martin tried to walk along a yellow line and then turn around and walk back. He wobbled.

Finally, Martin had to stand on one foot. That also didn't go well.

Back at the DUI station, Martin blew a 0.18.


Annual DUI arrests by St. Petersburg police:

2005: 558 DUI arrests

2006: 584 DUI arrests

2007: 468 DUI arrests

California DUI Attorneys could have helped these folks from Stockton

California DUI attorney cases out of Stockton California

Ever wonder why folks should hire a California DUI attorney? To avoid this:

Amador, Raul, 23, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Anderson, Justin, 29, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' California DUI formal probation, $2,323 fine, seven days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Banda, Jorge, 18, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' California DUI formal probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Chavez, Carmen, 36, of Stockton: Second California DUI conviction, five years' California DUI formal probation, $2,323 fine, 10 days in jail, second-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Chuon, Cheun, 26, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Corr, Brian, 23, of Stockton: Second vconviction, five years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, 15 days in jail, second-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Espino, Jorge, 42, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' California DUI formal probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Gallien, Michael, 38, of Stockton: Second California DUI conviction, five years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, 10 days in jail, second-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Guerra, Kenneth, 48, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, 10 days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Hernandez, Jacinto, 35, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Lopez, Joaquin, 20, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' California DUI formal probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Magana, Jorge, 37, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Marquez, Tommy, 26, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, four days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Martinez, Cesar, 27, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Martini, Gina, 29, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Mendoza, Jaime, 20, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' California DUI formal probation, $2,323 fine, 21 days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Mendoza, Martin, 30, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, seven days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Phourn, Phoeuth, 23, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Rivera, Nicholas, 48, of Mariposa: First California DUI conviction, three years' California DUI formal probation, $2,323 fine, seven days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Sandoval, Remedios, 45, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Valencia, Rodolfo, 24, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Valero, Simon, 63, of Linden: Second California DUI conviction, five years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, 120 days in jail, second-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Vang, Phen, 25, of Stockton: Second California DUI conviction, five years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, 10 days in jail, second-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Vega, Benito, 37, of Stockton: Second California DUI conviction, five years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, seven days in jail, second-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

Yen, Paul, 23, of Stockton: First California DUI conviction, three years' formal California DUI probation, $2,323 fine, two days in jail, first-offender California DUI drinking-driver program, driver's license restricted.

California DUI lawyers help folks arrested for California DUI. How many of these folks do you think had California DUI attorneys?

Murder DUI vs. no Murder DUI in California - 2 cases

California DUI attorney news - issue of murder in California DUI cases:

A Fellows woman is being sought on murder charges in connection with an alleged drunk driving accident that killed a McKittrick man last summer.

A felony warrant charging Donna Brinkman, 43, with second degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter, felony drunk driving and driving on a suspended license, was issued on Feb. 6.

Law enforcement officers have been unable to locate her to serve the warrant, Kern County Sheriff's Sgt. Martin Downs said.

Brinkman was arrested at the scene of the July 28 crash on Highway 33 in McKittrick that fatally injured Robert Morrison, 76.

Morrison was struck by Brinkman's vehicle while walking across Highway 33 near D Street, according to the California Highway Patrol.

Kern County Court records show that Brinkman had a prior conviction for drunk driving just one month before the fatal accident.

Brinkman was sentenced on June 26 to two days in jail, fined $15,084 and placed on probation for three years, court records show.


In contrast, California DUI lawyers:

A woman accused of driving drunk and causing a crash that killed her two passengers in Palm Desert last February will not be charged with murder, prosecutors said Friday.

Tiffany Marie Campbell, 23, of Cathedral City, has already been ordered to stand trial for DUI and gross vehicular manslaughter.

The Riverside County District Attorney's Office earlier announced it was considering adding the murder charges, but prosecutors said today there was "insufficient evidence."

"After reviewing all of the evidence and the totality of circumstances surrounding this incident, we determined to have insufficient evidence to warrant murder charges in this case," said D.A. spokesman Michael Jeandron.

If convicted of the other charges, Campbell could be sentenced to up to 12 years in prison.

Campbell, who re-entered not guilty pleas at a pre-trial arraignment Friday, allegedly had a blood-alcohol level of .18, more than twice the legal limit, when her Volkswagen Jetta crashed into the back of a tractor-trailer on Highway 111 at Town Center Way about 2:15 a.m. last Feb. 26.

Her two passengers, Brian Murray, 23, of Palm Desert, and Kelli Luna, 22, of Cathedral City, died at the scene.

Campbell, who suffered moderate injuries in the crash, was being prepped for transport to Desert Regional Medical Center when paramedics smelled a "strong odor of alcohol on her breath," according to the declaration in support of the warrant.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Randall D. White scheduled a trial-readiness conference for March 14, but her public defender, David Prendergast, said he did not expect the to begin until early summer.

Newport Beach police will set up a sobriety DUI checkpoint

California dui lawyer news

Newport Beach DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI police will set up a DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI sobriety checkpoint Friday night near where drivers leave the peninsula, DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI police officials said.

From 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. on northbound Newport Boulevard and Finley Avenue, DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI officers will screen select drivers for DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI sobriety and pass out brochures on the dangers of DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI - driving under the influence.

DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI Police said they chose the base of the peninsula because of its close proximity to bars and restaurants. DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI Checkpoints tend to reduce the number of DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI inebriated drivers on the road but do not necessarily increase DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI arrests, DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI officials said. DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI Checkpoints are deterrents and ensure public safety by reducing the amount of DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI drunk drivers on the road, DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI police said.

DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI Police also conduct DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI saturation patrols, where DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI officers target drivers appearing to be DUI / Drunk Driving / DWI - driving under the influence.