Thursday, October 28, 2010

One California DUI Repeat Offender with a pre-July 1, 2010 arrest has been allowed a restricted license with a vehicle having an IID

Brilliant California DUI Criminal Defense Attorney Paul Burglin today obtained an Order granting the petition for writ of mandamus on the second offender IID issue.

According to public records filed in the Superior Court, County of Marin, California DMV has been ordered to issue the Petitioner an ignition interlock device - restricted license pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 13352(A)(3, as amended July 1, 2010.

This California Petitioner had a DUI offense date of February 23, 2010, and a DUI conviction date was on July 15, 2010.

Judge Verna Adams of the Marin County Superior Court found, that as to this Petitioner, this case is governed by the principles expressed in IN RE ESTRADA (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744-745 and People v. Durbin (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 474, 478-479.

The California court said that the legislative history of the (DUI) amendment at issue indicates it was intended to 'provide one more tool to proactively fight drunk driving" by providing incentives to repeat (California DUI) offenders to install an IID on their vehicles, which studies have shown reduces recidivism by an estimated 75% and alcohol-related fatalities by 7%. In line with the rationale behind IN RE ESTRADA, by shortening the period of suspension as a way to encourage more repeat offenders to install interlocks, the legislature (h)as thereby indicated that it believes the former law is too restrictive and/or ineffective and, impliedly, its intent to have the new law apply to as many persons as constitutionally permissible."

In due time, the fine California Deputy Attorney General's Office may or may not (a) appeal this decision; and/or (b) instruct DMV to reverse its policy and allow repeat California DUI offenders with violation dates earlier than July 1, 2010 to obtain the IID-restricted license.

Considering California's legislative intent and its goal of public safety, the legislature has determined that even an egregious DUI Petitioner would have been less likely to do what he or she did had he or she had an IID in his or her vehicle.

Right now, it is too soon to tell what will happen throughout California. It is suspected that should DMV become enlightened, appropriate notices will be sent out to respective drivers. That would increase public safety and help everyone!