Sunday, December 27, 2009

Superb - rated California DUI attorney available to defend San Diego drunk driving cases

California DUI attorney available to defend your San Diego drunk driving case who is a

Superb-rated

San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney with the most thorough investigation and professional handling of your case from start to finish. Retaining top San Diego drunk driving legal representation will ensure any necessary bail posting as soon as possible to reduce initial San Diego jail time.



The best San Diego DUI defense attorney will investigate all San Diego drunk driving arrests to ensure that the client’s legal rights were preserved and the San Diego county police officer following proper San Diego procedure.



If your San Diego DUI criminal lawyer identifies an illegal action or misconduct by the San Diego police officer, it could be grounds for San Diego DUI case dismissal.



However, if all proper San Diego procedures were followed - an unlikely event - your San Diego DUI attorney will nonetheless defend your San Diego drunk driving case to the most professional extent.





A premier San Diego DUI attorney will be one with over 25 years of experience and expertise in San Diego California drunk driving cases. Excellent San Diego court outcomes and satisfied clients will also be illustrative of the talent of your San Diego DUI / drunk driving criminal attorney.



On August 1, 2009, Rick lectured at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller spoke at the prestigious California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

. San Diego DUI law firms provide free initial consultation to learn more about your case. To find the best San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer, visit

the most informative DUI website

.


Specialist in DUI and DMV Law now

.


Try a Free California DUI Evaluation

at this online DUI consultation site

.

Friday, December 25, 2009

Federal DUI bill to compel states to require ignition interlock device for all convicted drunk driving folks

Federal bill which will make MADD unneeded is proposed to compel states to require alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk driving offenders, with threat of losing federal funding. Is this a joke? Maybe. But the threat of losing federal highway funds is a powerful inducement to enact a safety change, and two U.S. senators, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Udall of New Mexico, joined MADD representatives Monday to announce their bill will use this tactic for DUI ignition interlocks.

Lautenberg wrote the law that lowered the legal blood-alcohol limit to 0.08 from 0.10 in all 50 states and also the law that set 21 as the legal minimum drinking age. He said U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., has included language to accomplish the bill's goal in the transportation reauthorization bill. Lautenberg and Udall serve on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

"New Mexico was the first state to attack the epidemic of drunk driving by implementing an aggressive ignition interlock penalty program for all offenders," Udall said. "The strategy has helped take drunk drivers off the roads and save lives. I believe enacting it nationwide would have the same positive and resounding effect."

This will probably put MADD out of business, and that's not so bad. "We know that 50 to 75 percent of drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license because they can," MADD National Board Member Jan Withers said. "With an ignition interlock, DUI offenders can still go to work, school, or anywhere else they need to go. They just can't drive drunk."

IIDs are about the size of a cell phone, attached to the starting circuit of a vehicle. A driver must blow into the device, which prevents the vehicle from starting if the driver has measurable alcohol (set to a predetermined level) in his of her system.

10 states currently have laws that require an ignition interlock for all DUI / drunk driving offenders: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Utah, and Washington.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The most comprehensive California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer information provided by San Diego County DUI Law Center's Drunk Driving Attorney

The most comprehensive California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer information provided by San Diego County DUI Law Center's Drunk Driving Attorney for those accused of a San Diego California DUI includes problem-free San Diego DUI help for San Diego DUI court and San Diego DMV. DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a Top-Rated San Diego Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego DUI & DMV Defense Attorney with over 25 years of experience. A California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller dedicates every bit of his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively defending those accused of San Diego Drunk Driving charges.

Rick taught at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller also spoke at the prestigious California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

.

Californians complete

Free Survey

for your best San Diego DUI defense attorney strategy and to vigorously protect your important driving privilege.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Even with Christmas, your attorney only has 10 days after arrested for DUI to contact DMV

Even with Christmas, your attorney only has 10 days after arrested for DUI to contact DMV.

10. If you need to save your driver's license or privileges, your attorney has only ten (10) calendar days to contact DMV!



Do not schedule yourself. If you contact DMV to schedule a date conflicting with your attorney's calendar, DMV will not reschedule and you may not get the attorney of your choice. There is no rush as long as your attorney contacts DMV by the 10th day from your arrest.



9. The ten (10) day time limit is computed from the Issue date of the SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. If time is running out or you are late, contact an attorney ASAP.



8. This ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is the California DMV paper which you should have received.



7. Even if you did not receive this DMV paper, the California DMV will probably take action against your driving privileges.



6. Even if you have a license from another state, and even if the officer did not take your license, that state may also take action against your driving privileges.



5. This TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE ENDORSEMENT is valid for only thirty (30) days from the issue date.



If a DMV hearing is requested within ten (10) days, your DMV TEMPORARY will be extended & there will be a stay (delay) of any suspension until the outcome of your DMV hearing is determined.



4. Do not confuse this initial 30 day TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE with your court date!

The DMV and criminal proceedings are separate and independent. The outcome of one almost never affects the other. Sometimes the officer or the DMV paper confuses or misleads you to believe that the TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is good "until the court date". If there are approximately thirty (30) days from your arrest date to your court date, this may just be a dangerous coincidence. There usually are months before your DMV hearing takes place.



3. There are three (3) issues at the hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of DMV paper.)



Issues are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you or whether the chemical test evidence is beatable.



2. The DMV has the burden of proof to prevail on all three (3) issues. If DMV meets the burden of proof on two (2) issues, you win!



1. All a DMV attorney has to do is knock out one (1) DMV issue to save your license & you avoid any reissue fee and/or Proof of Insurance SR-22 filing!




Saturday, December 19, 2009

In San Diego at a secret location, officers will set up a DUI checkpoint aimed at ferreting out those who drive with .08% or more

San Diego police officers join their colleagues across California taking part in an 18-day holiday DUI crackdown campaign. 300 DUI checkpoints will be set up in California.

Although the Supreme Court’s Ingersoll decision legitimized California Drunk Driving checkpoints, it established strict guidelines under which the roadblocks must be operated. If California DUI law enforcement do not follow the factors set out by the California Supreme Court, the evidence gained as a result of the roadblock may be suppressed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the motorist and may not be the basis to support a finding of a lawful arrest at a California DMV license suspension hearing.

In San Diego at a secret location, officers will set up a DUI checkpoint aimed at ferreting out those who drink and drive with .08% BAC or more.

San Diego's penalties for breaking DUI laws are rightfully stiff, including, jail time, loss of driver’s license, and fines. In addition, those convicted of San Diego drunk driving face higher insurance rates, attorney fees, time away from work, potential civil lawsuits and the list goes on.

Think about how you, your friends and family will get home after consuing alcohol during holiday celebrations.

Friday, December 18, 2009

California conducts more DUI checkpoints than any other state

California traffic safety officials continued to tighten their firm grip on drunk drivers today by declaring 2010 as "The Year of the Checkpoint" and announcing a record $8 million in grant funding to 148 law enforcement agencies for DUI checkpoints - up from $5 million this year.

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) will pay for more than 2,500 sobriety checkpoints in 2010, a 47 percent increase over the 1,700 conducted this year, more than 250 of which will take place between December 18 and January 3 as part of the December DUI Crackdown enforcement campaign.

California conducts more drunk driving checkpoints than any other state. After OTS and law enforcement began placing increased emphasis and funding toward sobriety checkpoints in 2006, alcohol-related deaths have declined in California. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System, DUI deaths declined in California by 9.1 percent between 2007 and 2008, marking a total decrease of nearly 21 percent from the most recent high point in 2005. In addition, statewide DUI arrests in 2008 were 214,811 - the highest since 1993.

"The California Highway Patrol will join more than 400 local agencies across the state over the next two weeks and throughout next year, taking part in sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrols and multi agency task force operations to get drunk drivers off the roads," said CHP Commissioner Joe Farrow. "The public can help by, first and foremost, planning ahead before you celebrate and designating a non-drinking driver. If you see a drunk driver, call 911."

All the research points to DUI checkpoints as a major contributor to the declines. When checkpoints are mounted effectively and regularly, studies have shown up to 25 percent declines in alcohol related deaths and injuries.

OTS will fund checkpoint operations by the CHP and regional 'Avoid' DUI task force programs covering 42 counties and over 400 local police departments. Increased checkpoints will target California's "Top 50 DUI Cities" with even more sobriety checkpoints in 2010. The number of OTS-funded DUI checkpoints in these 'Top 50 DUI Cities' topped out at 605 in FFY 2009. With increased funding, that number is expected to hit 975 in 2010, an increase of over 60 percent.

In addition to the checkpoints, the state's traffic safety and transportation departments are working together on multiple enforcement and public education fronts, with OTS, CHP, Caltrans, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) all playing major roles. Among private sector partners in the effort are more than 1,300 7-Eleven stores throughout California and 115 Raley's supermarkets in Northern California that have joined the campaign to promote the Plan Ahead. Designate a Sober Driver message.

"We are grateful for and heartened by the support of 7-Eleven and Raley's management and employees," said Director Murphy. "By working together to encourage customers to use a sober designated driver when they celebrate, we can prevent serious DUI tragedies this holiday season."

This special campaign is one of many tactics that are part of the on-going anti-DUI effort from the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The plan lists the reduction of impaired driving-related fatalities as its first Challenge Area.

Grant funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will be administered by the OTS through the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. For a list of the "Top 50 DUI Cities" and 148 special DUI grant cities, visit www.ots.ca.gov.


SOURCE California Office of Traffic Safety

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Here's A to Z San Diego DUI Lawyer information provided by San Diego County DUI Law Center's Drunk Driving Attorney

Avoid a DUI this holiday. Follow the tips. Here's A to Z San Diego DUI Lawyer information provided by San Diego County DUI Law Center's Drunk Driving Attorney for those trying to avoid a California DUI. San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a superb-rated San Diego Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego DUI & DMV Defense Attorney with over 25 years of experience. Rick recently lectured at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Start here: complete

Free Survey

for your best San Diego DUI defense attorney plan.

Monday, December 14, 2009

10 days from arrest for DUI to contact California DMV

10 days from arrest for DUI to contact California DMV

10. Your California drunk driving criminal defense attorney has only ten (10) calendar days to contact DMV!



Do not schedule yourself. If you contact DMV to schedule a date conflicting with your California DUI attorney's calendar, DMV will not reschedule and you may not get the attorney of your choice. There is no rush as long as your attorney contacts DMV by the 10th day from your arrest.



9. The ten (10) day time limit is computed from the Issue date of the SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. If time is running out or you are late, contact an attorney ASAP.



8. This ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is the California DMV paper which you should have received.



7. Even if you did not receive this DMV paper, the California DMV will probably take action against your driving privileges.



6. Even if you have a license from another state, and even if the officer did not take your license, that state may also take action against your driving privileges.



5. This TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE ENDORSEMENT is valid for only thirty (30) days from the issue date.



If a DMV hearing is requested within ten (10) days, your DMV TEMPORARY will be extended & there will be a stay (delay) of any suspension until the outcome of your DMV hearing is determined.



4. Do not confuse this initial 30 day TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE with your court date!

The DMV and criminal proceedings are separate and independent. The outcome of one almost never affects the other. Sometimes the officer or the DMV paper confuses or misleads you to believe that the TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is good "until the court date". If there are approximately thirty (30) days from your arrest date to your court date, this may just be a dangerous coincidence. There usually are months before your DMV hearing takes place.



3. There are three (3) issues at the hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of DMV paper.)



Issues are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you or whether the chemical test evidence is beatable.



2. The DMV has the burden of proof to prevail on all three (3) issues. If DMV meets the burden of proof on two (2) issues, you win!



1. All a DMV attorney has to do is knock out one (1) DMV issue to save your license & you avoid any reissue fee and/or Proof of Insurance SR-22 filing!




Saturday, December 12, 2009

License problem in 1 state? Crossing state lines may not make it going away

The Interstate Compact is a multi-state agreement between participating states to share information and reciprocate. It covers California DUI convictions and California license suspension actions.

California DUI convictionsIf a resident of one state or holder of an out-of-state license has his or her driving privilege suspended or gets convicted of Drunk Driving in another state (e.g. California), the driver's home state can be notified. Your home state may honor and reciprocate, i.e. take action to suspend the driver's license of its resident.

Just because you do not have a California driver's license and even if you do not plan to ever drive again in California, it is critical to know that a suspension of your driving privilege in California may result in a suspension of your home state driver's license. No matter where you live, you probably want to avoid, if not at least minimize, any driver's license suspension action by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

If you have any specific questions about how the Interstate Compact Act may apply in your case, you may want to contact a DUI/DMV attorney specialist in your state. States vary in their respective actions.

Friday, December 11, 2009

DUI checkpoints in California this weekend

DUI / Drivers License Checkpoint In Santee

San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies will be participating in the Drunk Driving; Over the Limit, Under Arrest – DUI Campaign in the City of Santee.

On Friday, December 11, 2009, Deputies will participate in the DUI Grant and target the City of Santee. This crackdown on alcohol related crimes and violations will primarily target drunk drivers.

The checkpoint will be conducted in the City of Santee from 8:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. The media is invited to attend, please contact Sgt. Scott Hill (619-956-4000), for the exact location for interviews and media opportunities. The Sheriff’s Mobile Command Unit will be on hand to process arrests.

Another DUI checkpoint will be held by the Azusa Police Department on Saturday at an undisclosed location. The checkpoint will be during evening hours in the city.

Yet another: Folsom police assisted by officers from other agencies will conduct a DUI checkpoint Friday on East Bidwell Street at Orchard Drive. The checkpoint will run from 8 p.m. to 3 a.m.

Police will be looking for drunken drivers Saturday night at a sobriety checkpoint at an undisclosed location in Ripon.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/local/story/968680.html#ixzz0ZPk0RPWM

Thursday, December 10, 2009

California DUI Lawyer information provided by a top California Drunk Driving Attorney provides headache-free San Diego California DUI help

California DUI Lawyer information provided by a top California Drunk Driving Attorney provides headache-free San Diego California DUI help for San Diego California DUI court and San Diego California DMV. DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a Premier San Diego California Drunk Driving Lawyer, San Diego California DUI & San Diego California DMV Defense Attorney with over 25 years of experience. Known as the San Diego California DUI - DMV Guru, San Diego California DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller only aggressively defends those accused of San Diego Driving Under the Influence.

On August 1, 2009, Rick lectured at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller spoke at the prestigious California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

. The California criminal defense lawyers who attended indicated to the President of the California DUI Lawyers Association that San Diego California DUI criminal defense lawyer Rick Mueller's presentation and materials were excellent.



Complete the important Free San Diego County Drunk Driving Defense Survey

at this online DUI consultation site

to find out your best strategy and to protect your driver's license in California.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Amish Man busted for Horse and Buggy DUI

Amish man Elmer Fisher was arrested for DUI after being found asleep in a buggy that was moving very slowly. The buggy was moving at a walking pace. The horse was pulling the buggy along the road, straddling the center line.

Sensing a problem, an off-duty cop stopped his car. The cop pounded on the buggy door until Fisher was awakened. Drunk Driving Police said Fisher allegedly displayed signs of intoxication, with the strong smell of alcohol on his breath and bloodshot, watery eyes. A breath test purportedly showed his alcohol level at 0.18 percent.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

California DMV / DMV suspension can be set aside or sustained. If the DMV suspension is sustained, the decision can be appealed

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


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

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



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



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


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



Looking for a Lawyer? On August 1, 2009, Rick lectured at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller spoke at the prestigious California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

.

Monday, December 7, 2009

HGN/"pen" test given in front seat of car NOT administered by DUI cop properly compliance with the NHTSA standards

A police offer improperly administered the eye test with a pen in the front seat of his patrol car. She testified that she was situated next to him and that she had to turn from her waist to face him “like this.”

This Court finds that the trial court did not err in concluding that the trooper failed to administer the HGN test in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards. The manual emphasizes how critical it is for an officer to determine a 45-degree angle.

The manual offers 3 ways to determine such an angle, to wit: by
the use of a template, by positioning a stimulus a specific distance from the
suspect’s face and moving it that same distance to the side, and by gauging the
angle in respect to the suspect’s shoulder. There is nothing in the record to
indicate that the trooper used a template.

He further was unable to approximate a distance that he demonstrated for the court, calling into question his ability to gauge the proper angle by moving the stimulus a specific distance to the side.

Finally, the trial court was able to observe appellee as she turned at the waist to
see that her shoulders would not have been square to the trooper as he performed
the third part of the HGN test. Accordingly, the trooper could not have properly
gauged a 45-degree angle from the position of appellee’s shoulder. Under these
circumstances, there is nothing to show that the trooper properly gauged a 45- degree angle to determine the onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees.

Due to the NHTSA’s emphasis on the importance of determining such an angle, the evidence indicating uncertainty as to whether the trooper was able to do so supports the trial court’s conclusion that the HGN test was not administered in substantial
compliance with the NHTSA standards.

Here's the case:

[Cite as State v. Haneberg, 2007-Ohio-2561.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO
Appellant
v.
HALLIE J. HANEBERG
Appellee
C. A. No. 06CA0048-M
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
MEDINA MUNICIPAL COURT
COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
CASE No. 05 TRC 07182
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: May 29, 2007
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned
has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals the judgment of the Medina
Municipal Court, which granted, in part, appellee Hallie Haneberg’s motion to
suppress. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} On August 16, 2005, appellee was cited after a traffic stop for
operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (“OVI”) in violation of
R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and for traveling left of center in violation of R.C.
4511.25. Appellee filed a motion to suppress all evidence flowing from the traffic
stop. The trial court held a hearing on the motion. On June 13, 2006, the trial
2
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
court issued a judgment entry, denying the motion to suppress in part, and
admitting at trial evidence regarding appellee’s refusal to submit to a breath test,
the BAC Data Master checklist and the one-leg-stand test. The trial court,
however, granted the motion in part, excluding at trial evidence regarding the
walk-and-turn test and the horizontal gaze nystagmus (“HGN”) test.
{¶3} On June 15, 2006, the State timely appealed the granting in part of
the motion to suppress. The State further properly certified that the appeal is not
taken for the purpose of delay and that the ruling on the motion to suppress has
rendered the State’s proof with respect to the pending OVI charge so weak in its
entirety that any reasonable possibility of effective prosecution has been
destroyed. See R.C. 2945.67(A); Crim.R. 12(K). The State raises one assignment
of error for review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
“THE MEDINA MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
APPELLEE’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE HORIZONTAL
GAZE NYSTAGMUS FIELD SOBRIETY TEST.”
{¶4} The State argues that the trial court erred by granting appellee’s
motion to suppress the HGN test. This Court disagrees.
{¶5} Regarding the relevant standard of review, this Court has stated:
“An appellate court’s review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court
acts as the trier of fact during a suppression hearing, and is therefore,
best equipped to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and resolve
3
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
questions of fact. Accordingly, we accept the trial court’s findings
of fact so long as they are supported by competent, credible
evidence. The trial court’s legal conclusions, however, are afforded
no deference, but are reviewed de novo.” (Emphasis and internal
citations omitted.) State v. Swan, 9th Dist. No. 22939, 2006-Ohio-
2692, at ¶8.
{¶6} The trial court excluded the HGN test for purposes of determining
probable cause and suppressed the test at trial on the merits based upon its
conclusion that Trooper Crist did not perform the HGN test in substantial
compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”)
standards. Specifically, the trial court found that the respective positions of the
trooper and appellee during the administration of the HGN test precluded the
trooper’s ability to properly estimate the 45-degree angle necessary to attain valid
test results. As the finding of a lack of substantial compliance with NHTSA
standards constitutes a conclusion of law, this Court conducts a de novo review.
{¶7} The version of R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b) in effect at the relevant time
states:
“In any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a
violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, of a municipal
ordinance relating to operating a vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse, or of a
municipal ordinance relating to operating a vehicle with a prohibited
concentration of alcohol in the blood, breath, or urine, if a law
enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the
operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by
clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test
in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable,
credible, and generally accepted field sobriety tests that were in
effect at the time the tests were administered, including, but not
limited to, any testing standards then in effect that were set by the
4
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
national highway traffic safety administration, all of the following
apply:
“(i) The officer may testify concerning the results of the field
sobriety test so administered.
“(ii) The prosecution may introduce the results of the field sobriety
test so administered as evidence in any proceedings in the criminal
prosecution or juvenile court proceeding.
“(iii) If testimony is presented or evidence is introduced under
division (D)(4)(b)(i) or (ii) of this section and if the testimony or
evidence is admissible under the Rules of Evidence, the court shall
admit the testimony or evidence and the trier of fact shall give it
whatever weight the trier of fact considers to be appropriate.”
See, also, State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-37, at ¶9 (recognizing
that the General Assembly amended R.C. 4511.19, so that an arresting officer no
longer must have administered field sobriety tests in strict compliance with testing
standards for the test results to be admissible at trial. Rather, the officer may now
testify regarding the results of a field sobriety test administered in substantial
compliance with testing standards.).
{¶8} The parties admitted into evidence the portion of the NHTSA DWI
Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing manual in effect at the time of
the stop, regarding the concepts and principles of the standardized field sobriety
tests. The manual addresses the procedures of the HGN test, including the three
clues for which an officer must look. Specifically, an officer must first look for
the lack of smooth pursuit, noting whether the eyes jerk or “bounce” as they
follow a smoothly moving stimulus. Second, an officer must determine whether
5
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
there is distinct and sustained nystagmus, or involuntary jerking of the eyes, when
the eye is held at maximum deviation for a minimum of four seconds. Maximum
deviation occurs when the eye is as far to the side as possible, generally when
there is no white visible at the edge. Third, an officer must determine whether the
eyes begin jerking prior to moving 45 degrees to the side.
{¶9} The manual notes that it is important for an officer to learn how to
estimate a 45-degree angle. The manual states that how far the officer positions
the stimulus from the suspect’s nose is a critical factor in estimating a 45-degree
angle. Specifically, the manual directs that the officer should move a stimulus
held 12 inches from the suspect’s nose 12 inches to the side to reach 45 degrees.
Likewise, it directs that the officer should move a stimulus held 15 inches from the
suspect’s nose 15 inches to the side to reach 45 degrees. In the section captioned
“Estimating a 45-Degree Angle,” there is no reference to the positioning of the
suspect’s shoulders. However, under “Specific Procedures,” the NHTSA manual
directs the officer to start moving the stimulus at a speed that would take
approximately four seconds to reach the edge of the suspect’s shoulder when
checking for the onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees. Accordingly, the manual
directs that the officer use the shoulder as a reference point to gauge 45 degrees.
In addition, the manual emphasizes the need to use the full 4 seconds during this
part of the test: “NOTE: It is important to use the full four seconds when checking
6
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
for onset of nystagmus. If you move the stimulus too fast, you may go past the
point of onset or miss it altogether.”
{¶10} The manual does not address where the test must take place or how
the officer and suspect must be positioned in relation to one another. The manual
does not mandate that the officer and suspect be standing, nor does it prohibit the
officer and suspect from sitting during the administration of the test. In addition,
the Preface of the manual states:
“The procedures outlined in this manual describe how the
Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) are to be administered
under ideal conditions. We recognize that the SFSTs will not always
be administered under ideal conditions in the field, because such
conditions will not always exist. Even when administered under less
than ideal conditions, they will generally serve as valid and useful
indicators of impairment. Slight variations from the ideal, i.e., the
inability to find a perfectly smooth surface at roadside, may have
some affect on the evidentiary weight given to the results. However,
this does not necessarily make the SFSTs invalid.”
{¶11} In this case, Trooper Samuel Crist of the State Highway Patrol
testified that he pulled appellee over in the early morning hours of August 16,
2005. The ticket indicates that appellee was cited at 2:26 a.m. He testified that,
while he administered the walk-and-turn test and one-leg-stand test outside, he
administered the HGN test in the front seat of his cruiser where the overhead dome
light provided good lightening. He testified that performing the HGN test inside
the vehicle provided ideal conditions because of the good lighting, no distractions
from overhead outside lights, and for safety reasons. Appellee’s presence in the
7
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
front seat of his cruiser further allowed him to better observe her glassy and
bloodshot eyes and to smell the odor of alcohol on her breath.
{¶12} Trooper Crist testified that he received training and certification in
the administration of field sobriety tests at the Highway Patrol Academy in 1985,
and that he has participated in yearly in-service training regarding DUI detection
and laws regarding DUI. Notwithstanding his certification to administer the field
sobriety tests 20 years earlier, Trooper Crist testified that he had never before used
the HGN test in the field. His testimony, upon direct examination by the State,
was as follows:
“Q. And in addition to that training, have you had an opportunity to
use these field tests out in the field?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And that would, essentially my question is, prior to this stop
you have used these tests?
“A. Not the one-leg stand or horizontal gaze test. I used the walk
and turn test and what I call the balance test, but not the other two.”
{¶13} Trooper Crist testified regarding his administration of the test to
appellee. He testified that there were no obstacles between himself and appellee
which interfered with his administration of the HGN test. On cross-examination,
however, he testified that between the two bucket seats in the front of the cruiser
are a vehicle camera affixed to the dashboard, the rearview mirror, a Python radar
unit, a personal computer unit and monitor, and a radio console. He testified that
there is a plexiglass shield behind the seats.
8
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
{¶14} Trooper Crist testified that appellee was facing him and he was
facing her in the front seat of his cruiser. He added that appellee turned towards
him upon his request and that, naturally when one turns one’s body, the neck
follows. Trooper Crist testified that he held a pen approximately 12 inches in
front of appellee’s face before he began the smooth pursuit part of the HGN test.
He then described his administration of the maximum deviation part of the test,
stating that he checked for nystagmus when the eyes were beyond a 45-degree
angle. He testified that he knows when the eye had surpassed 45 degrees, because
there is no white showing. He asserted that that is when he begins his 4-second
count.
{¶15} Finally, Trooper Crist described his administration of the third part
of the test where he must determine the onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees.
He testified that he moves the pen for about 2 seconds. The manual directs a 4-
second movement to reach the edge of the suspect’s shoulder. When questioned
regarding how far he moved the pen in front of appellee’s face, he demonstrated
the distance for the court. When asked to give an approximation of that distance,
Trooper Crist responded, “I couldn’t tell you.” When asked whether he moved the
pen 12 or 15 inches, he responded, “Probably – it’s at least a foot, but it’s – I
couldn’t tell you exactly how far.”
{¶16} Trooper Crist testified that his training in field sobriety tests
included administering some in a seated position, but he had no training
9
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
administering them inside a vehicle. He further admitted that no NHTSA certified
instructor ever observed or critiqued his administration of such tests in the front
seat of his patrol car.
{¶17} Appellee testified that Trooper Crist administered the eye test with a
pen in the front seat of his patrol car. She testified that she was situated next to
him and that she had to turn from her waist to face him “like this.”
{¶18} This Court finds that the trial court did not err in concluding that the
trooper failed to administer the HGN test in substantial compliance with NHTSA
standards. The manual emphasizes how critical it is for an officer to determine a
45-degree angle. The manual offers 3 ways to determine such an angle, to wit: by
the use of a template, by positioning a stimulus a specific distance from the
suspect’s face and moving it that same distance to the side, and by gauging the
angle in respect to the suspect’s shoulder. There is nothing in the record to
indicate that the trooper used a template. He further was unable to approximate a
distance that he demonstrated for the court, calling into question his ability to
gauge the proper angle by moving the stimulus a specific distance to the side.
Finally, the trial court was able to observe appellee as she turned at the waist to
see that her shoulders would not have been square to the trooper as he performed
the third part of the HGN test. Accordingly, the trooper could not have properly
gauged a 45-degree angle from the position of appellee’s shoulder. Under these
circumstances, there is nothing to show that the trooper properly gauged a 45-
10
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
degree angle to determine the onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees. Due to the
NHTSA’s emphasis on the importance of determining such an angle, the evidence
indicating uncertainty as to whether the trooper was able to do so supports the trial
court’s conclusion that the HGN test was not administered in substantial
compliance with the NHTSA standards. The State’s assignment of error is
overruled.
III.
{¶19} The State’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the
Medina Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the
Medina Municipal Court, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment
into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate,
pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the
journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of
Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E).
The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this
11
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District
judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket,
pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
MOORE, J.
CONCURS
SLABY, P. J.
DISSENTS, SAYING:
{¶20} I respectfully dissent. I believe there was sufficient testimony by the
officer to demonstrate substantial compliance with the regulations. Further the majority
concludes that since the Defendant’s shoulders were not square with the officers, he
would not have gauged a 45 degree angle. There is no requirement that the shoulders be
square, only that the references used would allow for a gauge of a 45 degree angle of
deviation from the shoulders.
APPEARANCES:
J. MATTHEW LANIER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
KEVIN W. DUNN, Attorney at Law, for appellee.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

California criminal defense attorneys who are DUI Specialists can help folks with the most thorough investigation and professional handling of a DUI

California criminal defense attorneys who are DUI Specialists can help folks with the most thorough investigation and professional handling of your case from start to finish. With a goal to protect your legal rights and reduce penalties to the minimum, properly defend your San Diego DUI case, looking for the best chance to get back to your life. Hiring Superb San Diego drunk driving legal representation will ensure any necessary bail posting as soon as possible to reduce initial San Diego jail time.



The best San Diego DUI defense attorney will investigate all San Diego drunk driving arrests to ensure that the client’s legal rights were preserved and the San Diego county police officer following proper San Diego procedure. A premier San Diego DUI attorney will be one with over 25 years of experience and expertise in San Diego California drunk driving cases. Excellent San Diego court outcomes and satisfied clients will also be illustrative of the talent of your San Diego DUI / drunk driving criminal attorney.



On August 1, 2009, Rick lectured at the

Annual DUI Seminar

in connection with the American Bar Association at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. San Diego California Criminal Defense Attorney Rick Mueller spoke at the prestigious California Attorneys For Criminal Justice

A Day in the Desert with the DUI Experts - Annual DUI seminar

.
San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer, visit

the most informative DUI website

.



San Diego County's Specialist in DUI and DMV Law now

.



California DUI Evaluation

at this online DUI consultation site

.

Video of San Diego DUI / DMV Attorney

Friday, December 4, 2009

Alcohol in energy drinks can affect breath alcohol testing

Potential effect of alcohol content in energy drinks on breath alcohol testing.

Since the advent of energy drinks in the U.S. marketplace, some defendants have claimed that positive breath alcohol test results have occurred due to the ingestion of non-alcoholic energy drinks.

A variety of energy drinks were tested by gas chromatography and some 88.9% (24 of 27) were found to contain low concentrations of ethanol (5-230 mg/dL).

Drinks were then consumed (24.6-32 oz) by volunteers to determine the extent of reaction that could be achieved on a portable breath-testing instrument. Eleven of 27 (40.7%) beverages gave positive results on a portable breath-testing instrument (0.006-0.015 g/210 L) when samples were taken within 1 min of the end of drinking.

All tests taken by portable breath test, DataMaster, and Intoximters Inc. EC/IR II at least 15 minutes after the end of drinking resulted in alcohol-free readings (0.000 g/210 L).

Affording subjects a minimum 15-minutes observation period prior to breath-alcohol testing (may) eliminate the possibility that a small false-positive alcohol reading will be obtained.

Source:

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, State Public Health Laboratory, Breath Alcohol Program, 2875 James Blvd., Poplar Bluff, Missouri 63901, USA. brian.lutmer@dhss.mo.gov

Resources: Lutmer B, Zurfluh C, Long C.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

One state has created a free iPhone program that lets users attempt calculate their breath alcohol content

iPhone appplication to help estimate blood-alcohol content. One state has created a free iPhone program that lets users attempt calculate their breath alcohol content.

Input various information — weight, sex, number of hours since you began drinking, type and amount of alcoholic beverages you've consumed, then it attempts to estimate what your blood alcohol level is based on your breath sample.

In addition to getting an estimated blood-alcohol content, users see messages such as, "No hangover expected," and "You're buzzed."

If they are considered over the legal blood-alcohol level for driving under the influence — 0.08 percent — the app displays an apt warning: "Don't even think about it."

"People just need to be aware of how alcohol affects them," said Heather Halpape, a spokeswoman for Colorado Department of Transportation safety programs. "This is just a tool to give them a little idea of where they are."

There's more. Users can click on a "Taxi" icon for the phone number of the closest Yellow Cab office. Called "R-U-Buzzed?" the app uses the iPhone's GPS to determine the person's location before offering the telephone number.

It's the first time a state transportation department has created such an app, agency officials say.

But it's not intended as a substitute for common sense. Difficulty entering the information might mean you're a good candidate to walk home.

CDOT stresses the program should be used only as a guide as it doesn't consider other critical factors, such as an individual user's metabolism or whether they've had anything to eat.

Developed by Denver-based ID345, the app is part of CDOT's "Plan Ahead" campaign to cut down on drunken driving during the holidays.

It's proving popular, as it has already been downloaded 3,000 times since it was posted in Apple's app store in mid-November. It ranks among the Top 50 health and fitness programs, according to ID345.

Emily Tompkins, Colorado executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said she doesn't advocate for the tool because too many other factors can affect a person's impairment level.

"I think there's a lot of room for error, and people just really have to understand it's an estimate and the point is to plan before you've been drinking," Tompkins said.

She lauded the campaign's overall message, which encourages people to decide how they'll get home before they start drinking.

The campaign targets the holidays because of the surge in office and house parties.

The campaign is in its third year. Today, CDOT is expected to announce a new website, PlanAheadColorado.com.

The site will serve as the campaign's hub of information, listing more than 60 bars and restaurants in Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins and Colorado Springs that will provide free $5 vouchers for cab rides during the holidays.

Seven hotels in Denver, Fort Collins and Colorado Springs have agreed to give customers a discount if they ask for the "Plan Ahead" rate.

Yellow Cab is paying for the design and printing of the taxi vouchers and offering free Plan Ahead advertising on its vehicles. In return, Yellow Cab is the program's exclusive taxi in Denver, Boulder and northern Colorado.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

New California DUI ignition interlock bill

Here is a California DUI bill that was amended at the last minute 10-26 and changed to an ignition interlock bill. Proponents of the bills believed there may have otherwise been a loophole which California DUI criminal defense lawyers could use in that AB 91 and SB 598 went into effect at different times. They clarified the statutes so that SB598 begins 1/1/10. and AB91 begins 7/1/10.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 13352 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13352. (a) The department shall immediately suspend or revoke the
privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle upon the receipt of
an abstract of the record of a court showing that the person has
been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, subdivision
(a) of Section 23109, or Section 23109.1, or upon the receipt of a
report of a judge of the juvenile court, a juvenile traffic hearing
officer, or a referee of a juvenile court showing that the person has
been found to have committed a violation of Section 23152 or 23153
or subdivision (a) of Section 23109 or Section 23109.1. If an offense
specified in this section occurs in a vehicle defined in Section
15210, the suspension or revocation specified below shall apply to
the noncommercial driving privilege. The commercial driving privilege
shall be disqualified as specified in Sections 15300 to 15302,
inclusive. For the purposes of this section, suspension or revocation
shall be as follows:
(1) Except as required under Section 13352.1 or 13352.4, upon a
conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable
under Section 23536, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of
six months.
The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof
of financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of a driving-under- the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538. If the court, as
authorized under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 23646,
elects to order a person to enroll in, participate in, and complete
either program described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the
department shall require that program in lieu of the program
described in subdivision (b) of Section 23538. For the purposes of
this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit may not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(2) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of Section 23153
punishable under Section 23554, the privilege shall be suspended for
a period of one year. The privilege may not be reinstated until the
person gives proof of financial responsibility and gives proof
satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code as described in subdivision (b)
of Section 23556. If the court, as authorized under paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b) of Section 23646, elects to order a person to enroll
in, participate in, and complete either program described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23542, the department shall require that
program in lieu of the program described in Section 23556. For the
purposes of this paragraph, enrollment, participation, and completion
of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the
current violation. Credit may not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(3) Except as provided in Section 13352.5, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23540, and if the person was found to be only under the influence of
an alcoholic beverage at the time of the violation of Section 23152,
the privilege shall be suspended for two years. The privilege may not
be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial
responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of
successful completion of a driving-under- the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code as
described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542. For the purposes of
this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department
shall advise a person convicted or found to be in violation of
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 23152 that after completion of 90
days of the suspension period, which may include credit for a
suspension period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3,
the person may apply to the department for a restricted driver's
license. Eligibility for the restricted driver's license is subject
to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily provided, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under- the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(ii) Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under- the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code, if available in the county of the person's residence or
employment.
(B) The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to
continue satisfactory participation in the program described in
subparagraph (A).
(C) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(D) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(E) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(F) The person pays all reissue fees and any restriction fee
required by the department.
(G) The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover
the costs of administration of this paragraph, as determined by the
department.
(H) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(4) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section
23560, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years.
The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of
financial responsibility, and the person gives proof satisfactory to
the department of successful completion of a
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in paragraph (4) of
subdivision (b) of Section 23562. For the purposes of this
paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department
shall advise the person that after the completion of 12 months of the
revocation period, which may include credit for a suspension period
served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply
to the department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in that 30-month program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(F) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(5) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23546, and if the person was found to be only under the influence of
an alcoholic beverage at the time of the violation of Section 23152,
the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years. The
privilege may not be reinstated until the person files proof of
financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of one of the following programs:
an 18-month driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 23548, or, if available in the
county of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved
program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation.
Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior
to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise a
person convicted or found to be in violation of subdivision (a) or
(b) of Section 23152 that after completion of six months of the
revocation period, which may include credit for a suspension period
served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply
to the department for a restricted driver's license. Eligibility for
the restricted driver's license is subject to the following
conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily provided, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, one of the
following:
(i) With regard to a conviction under subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 23152, proof of enrollment in an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) With regard to a conviction under subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 23152, proof of enrollment in a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under- the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23546 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county
of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover
the costs of administration of this paragraph, as determined by the
department.
(H) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(6) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23540, and if the person was found to be under the influence of any
drug or the combined influence of any drug and an alcoholic beverage,
the privilege shall be suspended for two years. The privilege may
not be reinstated until the person gives proof of financial
responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the department of
successful completion of a driving-under- the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code as
described in subdivision (b) of Section 23542. For the purposes of
this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an
approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current
violation. Credit shall not be given to any program activities
completed prior to the date of the current violation. The department
shall advise the person that after completion of 12 months of the
suspension period, which may include credit for a suspension period
served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply
to the department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily provided, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) Proof of enrollment in an 18-month driving-under- the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(ii) Proof of enrollment in a 30-month driving-under- the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code, if available in the county of the person's residence or
employment.
(B) The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to
continue satisfactory participation in the program described in
subparagraph (A).
(C) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(D) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(E) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(F) The person pays all administrative fees or reissue fees and
any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(7) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23546, and if the person was found to be under the influence of any
drug or the combined influence of any drug and an alcoholic beverage,
the privilege shall be revoked for a period of three years. The
privilege may not be reinstated until the person files proof of
financial responsibility and gives proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in subdivision (b)
or (c) of Section 23548, or, if available in the county of the person'
s residence or employment, a 30-month driving-under- the-influence
program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code, or a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For
the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and
completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of
the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any program
activities completed prior to the date of the current violation. The
department shall advise the person that after completion of 12 months
of the revocation period, which may include credit for a suspension
period served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person
may apply to the department for a restricted driver's license,
subject to the following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under- the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23546 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county
of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(8) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23153 punishable under Section
23550.5 or 23566, the privilege shall be revoked for a period of five
years. The privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives
proof of financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the
department of successful completion of one of the following programs:
an 18-month driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to
Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described in
subdivision (b) of Section 23568 or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved
program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation.
Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior
to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the
person that after the completion of 12 months of the revocation
period, which may include credit for a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the
department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under- the-influence program.
(ii) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if a 30-month program is
unavailable in the person's county of residence or employment.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23153
punishable under Section 23566 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(9) Except as provided in this paragraph, upon a conviction or
finding of a violation of Section 23152 punishable under Section
23550 or 23550.5, or Section 23153 punishable under Section 23550.5
the privilege shall be revoked for a period of four years. The
privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of
financial responsibility and proof satisfactory to the department of
successful completion of one of the following programs: an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or, if available in the county
of the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, or a program specified in
Section 8001 of the Penal Code. For the purposes of this paragraph,
enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved
program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation.
Credit shall not be given to any program activities completed prior
to the date of the current violation. The department shall advise the
person that after the completion of 12 months of the revocation
period, which may include credit for a suspension period served under
subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the
department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
following conditions:
(A) The person has satisfactorily completed, subsequent to the
violation date of the current underlying conviction, either of the
following:
(i) The initial 12 months of an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) The initial 12 months of a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, and the person agrees, as a
condition of the restriction, to continue satisfactory participation
in the 30-month driving-under- the-influence program.
(B) The person submits the "Verification of Installation" form
described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 13386.
(C) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device as
required under subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(D) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(E) An individual convicted of a violation of Section 23152
punishable under Section 23550 may also, at any time after
sentencing, petition the court for referral to an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. Unless good cause is shown, the
court shall order the referral.
(F) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(G) The restriction shall remain in effect for the period required
in subdivision (f) of Section 23575.
(10) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision
(a) of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (e) of that
section or Section 23109.1, the privilege shall be suspended for a
period of 90 days to six months, if ordered by the court. The
privilege may not be reinstated until the person gives proof of
financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430.
(11) Upon a conviction or finding of a violation of subdivision
(a) of Section 23109 that is punishable under subdivision (f) of that
section, the privilege shall be suspended for a period of six
months, if ordered by the court. The privilege may not be reinstated
until the person gives proof of financial responsibility, as defined
in Section 16430.
(b) For the purpose of paragraphs (2) to (11), inclusive, of
subdivision (a), the finding of the juvenile court judge, the
juvenile hearing officer, or the referee of a juvenile court of a
commission of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 or subdivision
(a) of Section 23109 or Section 23109.1, as specified in subdivision
(a) of this section, is a conviction.
(c) A judge of a juvenile court, juvenile hearing officer, or
referee of a juvenile court shall immediately report the findings
specified in subdivision (a) to the department.
(d) A conviction of an offense in a state, territory, or
possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Canada that, if committed in this
state, would be a violation of Section 23152, is a conviction of
Section 23152 for the purposes of this section, and a conviction of
an offense that, if committed in this state, would be a violation of
Section 23153, is a conviction of Section 23153 for the purposes of
this section. The department shall suspend or revoke the privilege to
operate a motor vehicle pursuant to this section upon receiving
notice of that conviction.
(e) For the purposes of the restriction conditions specified in
paragraphs (3) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (a), the department
shall terminate the restriction imposed pursuant to this section and
shall suspend or revoke the person's driving privilege upon receipt
of notification from the driving-under- the-influence program that the
person has failed to comply with the program requirements. The
person's driving privilege shall remain suspended or revoked for the
remaining period of the original suspension or revocation imposed
under this section and until all reinstatement requirements described
in this section are met.
(f) For the purposes of this section, completion of a program is
the following:
(1) Satisfactory completion of all program requirements approved
pursuant to program licensure, as evidenced by a certificate of
completion issued, under penalty of perjury, by the licensed program.

(2) Certification, under penalty of perjury, by the director of a
program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code, that the person
has completed a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code.
(g) The holder of a commercial driver's license who was
operating a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210, at
the time of a violation that resulted in a suspension or revocation
of the person's noncommercial driving privilege under this section is
not eligible for the restricted driver's license authorized under
paragraphs (3) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (a).
SEC. 2. Section 13352.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13352.5. (a) The department shall issue a restricted driver's
license to a person whose driver's license was suspended under
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, if all of the
following requirements have been met:
(1) Proof satisfactory to the department of enrollment in, or
completion of, a driving-under- the-influence program licensed
pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as described
in subdivision (b) of Section 23542 has been received in the
department's headquarters.
(2) The person submits proof of financial responsibility, as
described in Section 16430.
(3) The person completes not less than 90 days of the suspension
period imposed under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352. The 90 days may include credit for any suspension period
served under subdivision (c) of Section 13353.3.
(4) The person pays all applicable reinstatement or reissue fees
and any restriction fee required by the department.
(b) The restriction of the driving privilege shall become
effective when the department receives all of the documents and fees
required under subdivision (a) and shall remain in effect until the
final day of the original suspension imposed under paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352, or until the date all reinstatement
requirements described in Section 13352 have been met, whichever
date is later.
(c) The restriction of the driving privilege shall be limited to
the hours necessary for driving to and from the person's place of
employment, driving during the course of employment, and driving to
and from activities required in the driving-under- the-influence
program.
(d) Whenever the driving privilege is restricted under this
section, proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section
16430, shall be maintained for three years. If the person does not
maintain that proof of financial responsibility at any time during
the restriction, the driving privilege shall be suspended until the
proof required under Section 16484 is received by the department.
(e) For the purposes of this section, enrollment in, participation
in, and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the
date of the current violation. Credit shall not be given to any
program activities completed prior to the date of the current
violation.
(f) The department shall terminate the restriction imposed
pursuant to this section and shall suspend the privilege to drive
under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 upon receipt
of notification from the driving-under- the-influence program that the
person has failed to comply with the program requirements.
(g) If, upon conviction, the court has made the determination, as
authorized under subdivision (b) of Section 23540 or subdivision (d)
of Section 23542, to disallow the issuance of a restricted driver's
license, the department shall not issue a restricted driver's license
under this section.
(h) A person restricted pursuant to this section may apply to the
department for a restricted driver's license, subject to the
conditions specified in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352. Whenever proof of financial responsibility has already been
provided and a restriction fee has been paid in compliance with
restrictions described in this section, and the offender subsequently
receives an ignition interlock device restriction described in
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, the proof of
financial responsibility period shall not be extended beyond the
previously established term and no additional restriction fee shall
be required.
(i) This section applies to a person who meets all of the
following conditions:
(1) Has been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 that
occurred on or before July 1, 1999, and is punishable under Section
23540, or former Section 23165.
(2) Was granted probation for the conviction subject to conditions
imposed under subdivision (b) of Section 23542, or under subdivision
(b) of former Section 23166.
(3) Is no longer subject to the probation described in paragraph
(2).
(4) Has not completed the licensed driving-under- the-influence
program under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 for
reinstatement of the driving privilege.
(5) Has no violations in his or her driving record that would
preclude issuance of a restricted driver's license.
SEC. 3. Section 23109 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23109. (a) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle speed
contest on a highway. As used in this section, a motor vehicle speed
contest includes a motor vehicle race against another vehicle, a
clock, or other timing device. For purposes of this section, an event
in which the time to cover a prescribed route of more than 20 miles
is measured, but where the vehicle does not exceed the speed limits,
is not a speed contest.
(b) A person shall not aid or abet in any motor vehicle speed
contest on any highway.
(c) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle exhibition of
speed on a highway, and a person shall not aid or abet in a motor
vehicle exhibition of speed on any highway.
(d) A person shall not, for the purpose of facilitating or aiding
or as an incident to any motor vehicle speed contest or exhibition
upon a highway, in any manner obstruct or place a barricade or
obstruction or assist or participate in placing a barricade or
obstruction upon any highway.
(e) (1) A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) shall
be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 24
hours nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than three
hundred fifty-five dollars ($355) nor more than one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. That person shall
also be required to perform 40 hours of community service. The court
may order the privilege to operate a motor vehicle suspended for 90
days to six months, as provided in paragraph (10) of subdivision (a)
of Section 13352. The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle
may be restricted for 90 days to six months to necessary travel to
and from that person's place of employment and, if driving a motor
vehicle is necessary to perform the duties of the person's
employment, restricted to driving in that person's scope of
employment. This subdivision does not interfere with the court's
power to grant probation in a suitable case.
(2) If a person is convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) and
that violation proximately causes bodily injury to a person other
than the driver, the person convicted shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than
six months or by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500)
nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine
and imprisonment.
(f) (1) If a person is convicted of a violation of subdivision (a)
for an offense that occurred within five years of the date of a
prior offense that resulted in a conviction of a violation of
subdivision (a), that person shall be punished by imprisonment in a
county jail for not less than four days nor more than six months, and
by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(2) If the perpetration of the most recent offense within the
five-year period described in paragraph (1) proximately causes bodily
injury to a person other than the driver, a person convicted of that
second violation shall be imprisoned in a county jail for not less
than 30 days nor more than six months and by a fine of not less than
five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than one thousand dollars
($1,000).
(3) If the perpetration of the most recent offense within the
five-year period described in paragraph (1) proximately causes
serious bodily injury, as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (f)
of Section 243 of the Penal Code, to a person other than the driver,
a person convicted of that second violation shall be imprisoned in
the state prison, or in a county jail for not less than 30 days nor
more than one year, and by a fine of not less than five hundred
dollars ($500) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(4) The court shall order the privilege to operate a motor vehicle
of a person convicted under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) suspended for
a period of six months, as provided in paragraph (11) of subdivision
(a) of Section 13352. In lieu of the suspension, the person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle may be restricted for six months
to necessary travel to and from that person's place of employment
and, if driving a motor vehicle is necessary to perform the duties of
the person's employment, restricted to driving in that person's
scope of employment.
(5) This subdivision does not interfere with the court's power to
grant probation in a suitable case.
(g) If the court grants probation to a person subject to
punishment under subdivision (f), in addition to subdivision (f) and
any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, which may
include a fine, the court shall impose as a condition of probation
that the person be confined in a county jail for not less than 48
hours nor more than six months. The court shall order the person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle to be suspended for a period of
six months, as provided in paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352 or restricted pursuant to subdivision (f).
(h) If a person is convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) and
the vehicle used in the violation is registered to that person, the
vehicle may be impounded at the registered owner's expense for not
less than one day nor more than 30 days.
(i) A person who violates subdivision (b), (c), or (d) shall upon
conviction of that violation be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail for not more than 90 days, by a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars ($500), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(j) If a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle is
restricted by a court pursuant to this section, the court shall
clearly mark the restriction and the dates of the restriction on that
person's driver's license and promptly notify the Department of
Motor Vehicles of the terms of the restriction in a manner prescribed
by the department. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall place that
restriction in the person's records in the Department of Motor
Vehicles and enter the restriction on a license subsequently issued
by the Department of Motor Vehicles to that person during the period
of the restriction.
(k) The court may order that a person convicted under this
section, who is to be punished by imprisonment in a county jail, be
imprisoned on days other than days of regular employment of the
person, as determined by the court.
( l ) This section shall be known and may be cited as
the Louis Friend Memorial Act.
SEC. 4. Section 23550 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23550. (a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section
23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of three or more
separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section
23103.5, or Section 23152 or 23153, or any combination thereof, that
resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not less
than 180 days nor more than one year, and by a fine of not less than
three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000). The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle
shall be revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to
paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall
require the person to surrender the driver's license to the court in
accordance with Section 13550.
(b) A person convicted of a violation of Section 23152 punishable
under this section shall be designated as a habitual traffic offender
for a period of three years, subsequent to the conviction. The
person shall be advised of this designation pursuant to subdivision
(b) of Section 13350.
SEC. 5. Section 23550.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23550.5. (a) A person is guilty of a public offense, punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison or confinement in a county jail
for not more than one year and by a fine of not less than three
hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars
($1,000) if that person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152
or 23153, and the offense occurred within 10 years of any of the
following:
(1) A prior violation of Section 23152 that was punished as a
felony under Section 23550 or this section, or both, or under former
Section 23175 or former Section 23175.5, or both.
(2) A prior violation of Section 23153 that was punished as a
felony.
(3) A prior violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of
Section 192 of the Penal Code that was punished as a felony.
(b) Each person who, having previously been convicted of a
violation of subdivision (a) of Section 191.5 of the Penal Code, a
felony violation of subdivision (b) of Section 191.5, or a violation
of subdivision (a) of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, is
subsequently convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 is
guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison or confinement in a county jail for not more than one year and
by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor
more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(c) The privilege to operate a motor vehicle of a person convicted
of a violation that is punishable under subdivision (a) or (b) shall
be revoked by the department under paragraph (9) of subdivision (a)
of Section 13352, unless paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section
13352 is also applicable, in which case the privilege shall be
revoked under that provision. The court shall require the person to
surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance with
Section 13550.
(d) A person convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153
that is punishable under this section shall be designated as a
habitual traffic offender for a period of three years, subsequent to
the conviction. The person shall be advised of this designation under
subdivision (b) of Section 13350.
SEC. 6. Section 23552 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23552. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to a person punished
under Section 23550, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600
and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court
shall impose as conditions of probation that the person be confined
in a county jail for at least 180 days but not more than one year and
pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390) but not
more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(2) The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
revoked by the department under paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of
Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender the
driver's license to the court in accordance with Section 13550.
(b) In addition to subdivision (a), if the court grants probation
to any person punished under Section 23550, the court may order as a
condition of probation that the person participate, for at least 30
months subsequent to the underlying conviction and in a manner
satisfactory to the court, in a driving-under- the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code. In
lieu of the minimum term of imprisonment in subdivision (a), the
court shall impose as a condition of probation under this subdivision
that the person be confined in the county jail for at least 30 days
but not more than one year. The court shall not order the treatment
prescribed by this subdivision unless the person makes a specific
request and shows good cause for the order, whether or not the person
has previously completed a treatment program pursuant to subdivision
(b) of Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section
23562. In order to enable all required persons to participate, each
person shall pay the program costs commensurate with the person's
ability to pay as determined pursuant to Section 11837.4 of the
Health and Safety Code. No condition of probation required pursuant
to this subdivision is a basis for reducing any other probation
requirement in this section or Section 23600 or for avoiding the
mandatory license revocation provisions of paragraph (9) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352.
(c) In addition to Section 23600 and subdivision (a), if the court
grants probation to any person punished under Section 23550 who has
not previously completed a treatment program pursuant to subdivision
(b) of Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section
23562, and unless the person is ordered to participate in, and
complete, a program under subdivision (b), the court shall impose as
a condition of probation that the person, subsequent to the date of
the current violation, enroll in and participate, for at least 18
months and in a manner satisfactory to the court, in a
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as designated by the court. The
person shall complete the entire program subsequent to, and shall not
be given any credit for program activities completed prior to, the
date of the current violation. A person who has previously completed
a 12-month or 18-month driving-under- the-influence program licensed
pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code shall not be
eligible for referral pursuant to this subdivision unless a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code is not available for referral in
the county of the person's residence or employment. A condition of
probation required pursuant to this subdivision is not a basis for
reducing any other probation requirement in this section or Section
23600 or for avoiding the mandatory license revocation provisions of
paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352.
(d) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing
that the driving privilege may not be restored until the person
provides proof satisfactory to the department of successful
completion of a driving-under- the-influence program of the length
required under this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836
of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 7. Section 23566 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23566. (a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section
23153 and the offense occurred within 10 years of two or more
separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section
23103.5, or Section 23152 or 23153, or any combination of these
violations, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of two,
three, or four years and by a fine of not less than one thousand
fifteen dollars ($1,015) nor more than five thousand dollars
($5,000). The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to paragraph (8)
of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the
person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance
with Section 13550.
(b) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23153, and
the act or neglect proximately causes great bodily injury, as defined
in Section 12022.7 of the Penal Code, to any person other than the
driver, and the offense occurred within 10 years of two or more
separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section
23103.5, or Section 23152 or 23153, or any combination of these
violations, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of two,
three, or four years and by a fine of not less than one thousand
fifteen dollars ($1,015) nor more than five thousand dollars
($5,000). The person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to paragraph (8)
of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the
person to surrender the driver's license to the court in accordance
with Section 13550.
(c) If a person is convicted under subdivision (b), and the
offense for which the person is convicted occurred within 10 years of
four or more separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in
Section 23103.5, or Section 23152 or 23153, or any combination of
these violations, that resulted in convictions, that person shall, in
addition and consecutive to the sentences imposed under subdivision
(b), be punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state
prison for three years.
The enhancement allegation provided in this subdivision shall be
pleaded and proved as provided by law.
(d) A person convicted of Section 23153 punishable under this
section shall be designated as a habitual traffic offender for a
period of three years, subsequent to the conviction. The person shall
be advised of this designation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 13350.
(e) A person confined in state prison under this section shall be
ordered by the court to participate in an alcohol or drug program, or
both, that is available at the prison during the person's
confinement. Completion of an alcohol or drug program under this
section does not meet the program completion requirement of paragraph
(8) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352, unless the drug or alcohol
program is licensed under Section 11836 of the Health and Safety
Code, or is a program specified in Section 8001 of the Penal Code.
SEC. 8. Section 23568 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23568. (a) If the court grants probation to a person punished
under Section 23566, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600
and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court
shall impose as conditions of probation that the person be confined
in the county jail for at least one year, that the person pay a fine
of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390) but not more than
five thousand dollars ($5,000), and that the person make restitution
or reparation pursuant to Section 1203.1 of the Penal Code. The
person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be revoked by the
department under paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352.
The court shall require the person to surrender the driver's license
to the court in accordance with Section 13550.
(b) In addition to Section 23600 and subdivision (a), if the court
grants probation to a person punished under Section 23566, the court
shall impose as a condition of probation that the person enroll in
and complete, subsequent to the date of the underlying violation and
in a manner satisfactory to the court, an 18-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code or, if available in the county of
the person's residence or employment, a 30-month
driving-under- the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code, as designated by the court. The
person shall complete the entire program subsequent to, and shall not
be given any credit for program activities completed prior to, the
date of the current violation. In lieu of the minimum term of
imprisonment in subdivision (a), the court shall impose as a minimum
condition of probation under this subdivision that the person be
confined in the county jail for at least 30 days but not more than
one year. Except as provided in this subdivision, if the court grants
probation under this section, the court shall order the treatment
prescribed by this subdivision, whether or not the person has
previously completed a treatment program pursuant to subdivision (b)
of Section 23542 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section
23562. In order to enable all required persons to participate, each
person shall pay the program costs commensurate with the person's
ability to pay as determined pursuant to Section 11837.4 of the
Health and Safety Code. No condition of probation required pursuant
to this subdivision is a basis for reducing any other probation
requirement in this section or Section 23600 or for avoiding the
mandatory license revocation provisions of paragraph (8) of
subdivision (a) of Section 13352.
(c) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing
that the driving privilege may not be restored until the person
provides proof satisfactory to the department of successful
completion of a driving-under- the-influence program of the length
required under this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836
of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 9. This act shall become operative on July 1, 2010.