Saturday, December 31, 2011

san diego dui attorney consultation is as simple as logging in, clicking and a little bit of typing relevant drunk driving information

DUI & DMV lawyer consultation for New Year's arrest in San Diego county begins online here, is simple & effective. Benefit from 28 years of aggressive DUI attorney defense in the drunk driving trenches. Www.sandiegodui.com is the starting point, the genesis of immediate help needed to get your license back and keep out of San Diego California jail.

This holiday weekend can be salvaged by submitting evaluation form found @ said valuable site. Watch your email thereafter and reap the rewards.

Monday, December 12, 2011

First thing to do after a DUI is this free online Evaluation. San Diego attorney Rick Mueller quickly emails a proposal, license info & help

First thing to do after a DUI is this free online Evaluation. San Diego attorney Rick Mueller quickly emails a proposal, license return help & all information needed to consider your options and defend you while you keep driving.

His San Diego County DUI Law Center provides exceptional work you can rely on. You won't have to wait long for a quick response. Imagine getting emailed everything to handle this California DUI promptly & effectively.

Once you've done begun this San Diego DUI Lawyer consultation site, you'll be set. Let your fingertips begin. Then sit back and wait for your answers. There is no obligation. One thing is for sure, you'll be glad you started this way.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is a "10" - rated DUI Lawyer with multiple excellent Google Attorney Reviews, armed with 28+ years of experience

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller is rated a "10". Awarded as 1 of only 3 local TRUE California DUI Lawyers Association "Specialists," careful about other lawyer sites that claim they are Specialists. With his 28+ years of aggressive experience, you can really trust Rick. Do not be fooled with attorney ads saying they are "Specialists". Check CDLA's site for verification. Otherwise, it's self-titled without validation. Excellent Google Reviews confirm he devotes every minute of his profession in vigorously helping people charged with Drunk Driving in California.

Sometimes it is so difficult. Different attorneys say different things. Don't make it difficult. Keep it simple.

Most people just have to make up their minds once they have all the information. Get all the information emailed to you for your best San Diego California DUI defense lawyer approach at this helpful link. It's for many good people who make smart decisions. San Diego County DUI Law Center's Rick Mueller offers free online resources for folks confronted by the possibilities from a bad night.

For updates on local checkpoints, visit this free lawyer San Diego DUI checkpoint location map . It could save you alot of money and hassle, San Diego attorneys remind. This week the Sheriff's Department in San Diego County released their holiday DUI locations and dates. For details, click here.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Medical Marijuana may actually lower traffic deaths

The November 29th, 2011 paper published by University of Colorado Denver Professor Daniel Rees and Montana State University Assistant Professor D. Mark Anderson suggests Medical Marijuana may actually lower traffic deaths.

Actual Study shows medical marijuana laws reduce traffic deaths
Leads to lower consumption of alcohol

The study looked at traffic fatalities nationwide for the years 1990-2009 to see if there was any correlation between highway fatalities and liberalized medical marijuana laws. They found that, in states that legalized the medicinal use of marijuana, both traffic fatalities and alcohol consumption declined.

A groundbreaking new study shows that laws legalizing medical marijuana have resulted in a nearly nine percent drop in traffic deaths and a five percent reduction in beer sales.

High Times Magazine is excited: "While the study does not openly declare that medicinal cannabis legalization was directly responsible for the reduction in traffic fatalities, the implication is clear. "

High Times notes: "...if these people are driving with the same frequency now that they were before medical marijuana legalization and if they are smoking more pot instead of drinking, that suggests they are potentially driving while stoned and experiencing less fatalities, which would further substantiate the aforementioned studies (1983 and 1992 in the U.S., 1998 in Australia and 2000 from the UK) that do indicate people actually tend to drive more cautiously when stoned."

Back to this new study: “Our research suggests that the legalization of medical marijuana reduces traffic fatalities through reducing alcohol consumption by young adults,” said Daniel Rees, professor of economics at the University of Colorado Denver who co-authored the study with D. Mark Anderson, assistant professor of economics at Montana State University.

The researchers collected data from a variety of sources including the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System.

The study is the first to examine the relationship between the legalization of medical marijuana and traffic deaths.

“We were astounded by how little is known about the effects of legalizing medical marijuana,” Rees said. “We looked into traffic fatalities because there is good data, and the data allow us to test whether alcohol was a factor.”

Anderson noted that traffic deaths are significant from a policy standpoint.

“Traffic fatalities are an important outcome from a policy perspective because they represent the leading cause of death among Americans ages five to 34,” he said.

The economists analyzed traffic fatalities nationwide, including the 13 states that legalized medical marijuana between 1990 and 2009. In those states, they found evidence that alcohol consumption by 20- through 29-year-olds went down, resulting in fewer deaths on the road.

The economists noted that simulator studies conducted by previous researchers suggest that drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to underestimate how badly their skills are impaired. They drive faster and take more risks. In contrast, these studies show that drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to avoid risks. However, Rees and Anderson cautioned that legalization of medical marijuana may result in fewer traffic deaths because it’s typically used in private, while alcohol is often consumed at bars and restaurants.

“I think this is a very timely study given all the medical marijuana laws being passed or under consideration,” Anderson said. “These policies have not been research-based thus far and our research shows some of the social effects of these laws. Our results suggest a direct link between marijuana and alcohol consumption.”

The study also examined marijuana use in three states that legalized medical marijuana in the mid-2000s, Montana, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Marijuana use by adults increased after legalization in Montana and Rhode Island, but not in Vermont. There was no evidence that marijuana use by minors increased.

“Although we make no policy recommendations, it certainly appears as though medical marijuana laws are making our highways safer,” Rees said.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Searching for a 10-rating San Diego California DUI attorney starts right here. Be wary of Google searches of lawyers listing the word "DUI" !

Searching for a 10-rating San Diego California DUI attorney starts right here. Just because Google displays lawyers connected with the word "DUI" does not mean the California DUI Lawyers Association recognizes them as "Specialist" Attorneys. Check the CDLA site for easy verification.

Your initial San Diego DUI arrest often provides the best chance to contest the actions in an administrative hearing at DMV and in a court arena. First and foremost, observe the time limit on your pink Order of Suspension / Temporary License Endorsement.

You do not have to wait for Monday morning to get answers. Visit this San Diego County DUI Law Center resource consultation today and receive valuable information within minutes emailed to you.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Act innocent, honestly answer initial questions, do not offer information & know your rights if stopped by San Diego California DUI cop, attorneys say

1. Behave Innocent & Safe

When a San Diego California DUI cop stops your vehicle, take a deep breath. Naturally attempt to demonstrate to the cop that there is no problem and that nothing is wrong. Calmly behave nonthreateningly. Stop as soon as possible. Pull over and lawfully park in a safe location. Put your vehicle's overhead lights in the car if it's nighttime. Gently place your hands on the vehicle's wheel so the cop can clearly see both hands. Put your window about halfway, although some attorneys say all the way down and a number of lawyers suggest just to crack the window. In any event, try to relax. Deep breaths.

2. Honestly Answer initial Questions but do not Offer Information

San Diego cops are banking that you will do their job of leading to a DUI arrest by saying something borderline-stupid or just admitting to something you don't have to. Either way, avoid saying the wrong thing. Believe you have done nothing wrong. Think the cop is just curious and earning his pay. Never admit to doing anything wrong or having done anything criminal! Initially answer the cop's questions honestly without revealing much information.

Remember at any time your right to remain silent, depending on the questions, answers and the cop's responses. You really only have to give your license, registration and insurance if you encounter a cop after driving.

3. Politely Exercise Your Rights

Prior to arresting you for a California DUI, a San Diego area cop will want to have you blow in a hand-held breath test estimator gadget or maybe even look in your vehicle for contraband or evidence. You do not have to blow (unless under 21 years of age or on DUI probation). You do not have to let the cop search your vehicle. If the cop arrests you for DUI, tell the cop you do not wish to answer any questions unless you have a San Diego DUI criminal defense lawyer there with you.

The less information which helps the San Diego DUI cop convict you, the better. Less is better for you. That less is better does not always apply. So if you gave more than you had to, you will need the help of an experienced attorney even more, at both court and DMV.

If you are not sure you have an alcohol problem, check out the video clips in this San Diego DUI Lawyer's latest blog.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Do you need to attend a MADD meeting as a result of your San Diego California DUI? Here's a lawyer resource center has the MADD locations & dates

Do you need to attend a MADD meeting as a result of your San Diego California DUI? This attorney's resource center has the MADD locations, dates and times. Visit San Diego County DUI Law Center's MADD information center - click here for details.

If you are required to attend a MADD Victim Impact Panel meeting or session in San Diego County, as part of a court order after your DUI arrest, please note the following dates, four locations and times:

2nd Tuesday evening of each month, by 6:00 pm
San Diego Superior Court Hall of Justice – Jury Lounge
330 West Broadway Ave.
San Diego, CA 92101

3rd Tuesday evening of each month, by 4:45 pm
South Bay Superior Court – Jury Lounge
500 Third Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910

3rd Thursday evening of each month, by 4:45 pm
El Cajon Courthouse – Jury Lounge
250 East Main Street
El Cajon, CA 92020

4th Wednesday evening of each month, by 4:45 pm
Vista Courthouse – Jury Lounge
325 S. Melrose Drive
Vista, CA 92083

Please call (858) 564-0785 to confirm the above dates & times.

on hotline for details - click here.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Texting While Driving (TWD) & Cell phone use While Driving (CWD) More Dangerous than DUI or drunk driving, say Californians

Can you believe this? According to California folks, texting, using or speaking while on a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than DUI, drunk driving, speeding or aggressive driving.

About 20% of the people told the California State Office of Traffic Safety in a survey that CWD (Cell phone use while driving) is the #1 safety problem on California roads.

18% say Texting While Driving (TWD) is the most specific, worst problem, then speeding/aggressive driving at 17% and DUI/ drunk driving at 13%, California attorneys learned today.

Said opinions are not supported yet by recorded statistics. Stats presently suggest DUI or drunk driving is the most common cause of roadway injuries and deaths in California, lawyers are told.

California officials claim texting is more dangerous than talking on cell phones because it takes drivers' eyes off the road longer.

California drivers see more motorists talking on cell phones than texting, which is harder to detect.

Californians are beginning to recognize cell phone conversations are a serious distraction to drivers. "Distracted driving is something we want to curb early, so it doesn't become entrenched," says the top California official.

Cops of course will still continue to look for and stop drunk drivers and speeders, while continuing to stop motorists for illegal cell phone use, California DUI lawyers realize.

Interestingly, the number of drivers who admit talking on cell phones while driving has dropped in the last year.

It still remains legal in California to talk on a hands-free cell phone while driving, but California Safety officials believe that is as much as dangerous as talking on handheld cells.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Comparing San Diego DUI Attorneys with California Drunk Driving Lawyers who send out "Jail Mail"

Why do San Diego Attorneys Mail "DUI" Jail Mail? If looking for a cheap lawyer, you may read Junk Mail. But you likely want the finest San Diego DUI & DMV Defense Lawyer you can reasonably afford.

What's the difference?

Always remember the obvious:

Good lawyers are not cheap.
Cheap lawyers are usually not any good.


How does jail mail work?

You may be feeling a little bad as a result of your San Diego California DUI arrest. It definitely can get more depressing when you open your mail.
Oh, you did not want persons at your home to know you were arrested? Run home.
Why? Because attorneys send "Jail Mail."
Lots of lawyers pay for your name and address. Then they mail and solicit you with frequently old news, invasive, and undependable "DUI" letters. These mailings descend on your residence the week after release from jail.
Then there's embarrassing words printed on the envelopes:
"DUI" "Drunk Driving" "Arrested" "Former Prosecutor" "Court-related "
"DMV" "Legal Advertisement" "Urgent" "Law Offices" "Attorney"
Coupons, rebates!! K-Mart? Wal-Mart? Costco?
How can you know if you found a qualified San Diego California DUI Attorney?
Many types of lawyers appear in San Diego DUI cases: public defenders, general practitioners, California criminal defense attorneys, and DUI Specialist Lawyers recognized by the California DUI Lawyers Association.

Start with these questions when researching:

How long has he or she been handling DUI cases?

Is he or she prompt in providing information and answering emails or questions?

How long has he or she been in the National College for DUI Defense?
Does he lecture lawyers in San Diego and California on how to properly defend DUI and DMV cases?
Is he or she a Contributing Editor to the Bible for California DUI Defense - California Drunk Driving Law?
Is he or she a Contributing Editor to the modern DUI defense book: Attacking and Defending Drunk Driving Tests?
Does he or she maintain a huge library of DUI materials, books, manuals, studies, memos, research and documents solely designed to help someone facing a San Diego County DUI?
How much of his or her practice is DUI Defense?

Does he or she actually go to war in the battlefield, or does he or she send less experienced lawyers to handle Court and DMV?

Does the firm charge in advance for a jury trial fee even though most San Diego cases do NOT ultimately conclude with a trial?

Be wise. Examine with a magnifying glass the credentials of a California DUI Lawyer Specialist you are looking at.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

If you Google or Avvo San Diego DUI reviews for local attorneys and lawyers, you will find plenty of information to assist in making right choice

If you are 1 of 90 recent DUI arrests, take time & care in researching who to retain as a San Diego DUI Attorney. A substandard DUI Lawyer will dangerously weigh heavily on your future, your job, your family, your friends, your driving privilege and your life.

It's really not that hard to do research for competent DUI Lawyers in San Diego. For example, if you start with the California DUI Lawyers Association (CDLA), the largest and most effective state DUI defense association, there's only three local certified "Specialists", as recognized by CDLA standards.

If you Google or Avvo San Diego DUI reviews for local attorneys and lawyers, you will find plenty of information which will get you to the heart and soul of legal representation and personal handling of your difficult matter.

If you eliminate certain lawyers by whatever criteria you are considering - expertise, price, service, record, client acceptance and/or professional recognition - you can call or email the remaining candidates. A little research on your computer or phone will assist you in going a very long way to making the right decision.

Read this latest Article on exactly how to go about this important task.

Monday, November 28, 2011

To preserve your driving privilege in California, your lawyer is limited to just 10 calendar days to request a timely hearing at DMV so be Timely!

There are ten things to know what to do if you were a victim of a Thanksgiving Holiday DUI arrest in California. Learn how from this San Diego California DUI Attorney.

10. To preserve your driving privilege in California, your lawyer is limited to just 10 calendar days to request a timely hearing at DMV! The key is that your DUI lawyer must contact DMV by the 10th day from your arrest.

9. Ten days are added from the Issue date of the SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. Email your San Diego DUI Attorney ASAP to make sure you comply with this California DMV deadline.

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

7. If you did not receive this DMV paper, there's still a risk that California DMV will probably take action against your driving privileges.

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

Once the 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. This initial 30 day TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is different from your court date! California DMV and DUI criminal proceedings are separate and independent. The officer or the DMV paper may confuse or mislead you. Do not just 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. Weeks or months pass before your DMV hearing takes place.

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

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

2. California 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. A California DMV attorney must prevail on one (1) DMV issue to save your license & you avoid any reissue fee and/or Proof of Insurance SR-22 filing!

Sunday, November 27, 2011

You don't need a California Public Defender to handle your DUI - The California DUI Lawyers Association announces a DUI Clinic today

If you earn or possess too much money or property, a judge will deny your request for a California public defender attorney to handle your DUI criminal case.

That's why the California DUI Lawyers Association announced today that there is now a DUI Clinic for California drunk driving arrests.

The DUI Clinic can be reached at (888) 769-3300 and is brought to you by got-DUI-Help.com and all the attorneys mentioned on the County pages. This is the brainchild of prominent San Francisco DUI Defense Lawyer Joshua M. Dale, Esq.

This DUI help is for anyone arrested and charged with DUI under California law.

Lawyers & Attorneys disagree on the best way to handle a DUI in California.

If you do nothing within 10 days of your drunk driving arrest, your license will be suspended 30 days after arrest automatically by the computer at DMV.

Unless you retain the right DUI lawyer, the attorney prosecutor may ask for something more than the minimum - up to the maximum - because California DUI convictions statistics matter for future employment advancement in the District Attorney's Office of your DUI County.

Certified California DUI Lawyers and Specialists make huge claims. Many have a book or a website saying they know best.

It often requires a Brinks Truck to hire these attorneys. But if you need this DUI Clinic help, you now have a choice.


DUI information for the following California counties: Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo and Yuba

Saturday, November 26, 2011

San Diego DUI Attorneys will tell you that prosecuting lawyers regularly pursue drunk driving cases in situations with a .07% or less alcohol reading

Blowing a .07% at jail or the station does not mean you will not be charged with a California DUI or Driving with .08% BAC. San Diego DUI Attorneys will tell you that prosecuting lawyers regularly pursue drunk driving cases in situations when one's alcohol level is .07% or less, based on a blood test or breath test administered later.

Many times, a person blows in the hand-held gadget in the field earlier (closer in time to driving). That result could be .10%, .11%, .09% or .08%, for example. That could mean your BAC was higher earlier (closer in time to driving).

Other times a person's driving, signs of impairment, symptoms of intoxication and/or performance on DUI field sobriety testing trigger a California DUI charge.

The bottom line is what was your true BAC at the time of Driving, not the time of Testing (done some time after the Driving)?

You may were either in the post-absorptive stage or in the absorbing stage, so it makes a difference. The prosecuting attorney should not assume. The prosecutor's expert should not assume. Your San Diego California DUI lawyer can compare the results with the tests and the factors to assist you.

For further, in-depth DUI defense information on this subject, please review these attorney articles:

Retrograde Extrapolation

Avvo Attorney Article on Arrested for California DUI with .07% or less BAC


Thursday, November 24, 2011

Thanksgiving Day is an ok day to look for a DUI Attorney to handle a San Diego California DUI as online lawyers are available with free evaluations

Holiday hassle-free DUI Attorneys answer online questions about both San Diego court and DMV.
California DUI Lawyers Association trained assistance is accessible simply by browsing resourceful links by a premier San Diego DUI Defense Attorney who will respond Thanksgiving Day.

Free San Diego DUI / DMV / Drunk Driving Defense Evaluation at this online DUI consultation site to assist in figuring out your best approach and what to do next.

San Diego DUI Lawyer Rick Mueller rates 10 out of 10, a Superb Attorney with over 28 years of experience.

Thorough San Diego California DMV Guru giving it all he can with his San Diego DUI law practice to aggressively representing people who don't belong in this situation.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

"Officer, what did you say about my DUI rights and obligations in San Diego California? Can I talk to a lawyer or is that a refusal if I insist?"

One thing always comes in California DUI cases. The ultimate. The bottom-line. The prevailing evidence. It's called the BAC. It is from a Blood or Breath Test in alcohol cases. So you have to do it! Or else!!

Read this new San Diego County DUI Law Center Article about everything you need to know about "refusals," chemical tests, curing by submitting, defenses to refusals, differences between hand-held breath test gadgets and the big breath test machine.

Once the cuffs are on, here's what the cop normally reads to the California DUI suspect or arrestee:

The DMV chemical test admonition form used for this purpose states:

1. You are required by state law to submit to a PAS (DUI Probation) or other chemical test to determine the alcohol and/or drug content of your blood.

2. a. Because you are under the influence of alcohol, you have a choice of taking a breath or blood test.

b. Because I believe you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you have the choice of taking a blood, breath or urine test.

c. (when applicable) Since the blood and breath test is unavailable, you are deemed to have given your consent to chemical testing of your urine.

d. (when applicable) Since you need medical treatment, your choice is limited to __________ test(s), the only test(s) available at ________________________.


3. If you refuse to submit to, or fail to, complete a test, your driving privilege will be suspended for 1 year or revoked for 2 or 3 years. A second offense within 10 years of a separate violation of driving under the influence, including such a charge reduced to reckless driving, or vehicular manslaughter, or a violation of C.V.C. section 23140, or a separate administrative determination that you were driving with a blood alcohol content of .01 percent or more while under the age of 21, or .04 while operating a commercial vehicle, or a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or more at any age, or refusing a test will result in a 2 year revocation. Three or more offenses within 10 years of any combination of the above violations, convictions or separate administrative determinations will result in a 3 year revocation.

4. Refusal or failure to complete a test may be used against you in court. Refusal or failure to complete a test will also result in a fine and/or imprisonment if this arrest results in a conviction for driving under the influence.

5. You do not have the right to talk to an attorney or have an attorney present before stating whether you will submit to a test, before deciding which test to take, or during the test.

6. If you cannot, or state you cannot, complete the test you choose, you must submit to and complete a remaining test.

After this is supposed to be read, the driver’s statements and/or any refusal behavior or actions can be reported by the peace officer in blank lines provided by this DMV form.*

Will you take a breath test? _______________________

Will you take a blood test? _______________________

* “The driver refused to submit to or failed to complete any test. The refusal or failure was indicated by the following statements or actions: ___________________________.”

You must submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol and/or drug content in your body after you have been lawfully arrested for a California DUI.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

When a "Refusal" is Cured or is not a California DUI Refusal by agreeing to submit to a blood or breath test

When you are offered to submit to a chemical test in the street, it becomes an interesting question: "Do I HAVE to?"

Unless you are under 21 or on California DUI probation, you do not have to blow in the hand-held gadget on the street.

What if the officer explains you must submit to a chemical test in the street, you may look around and think: “Wait a minute, there’s no (big) breath test machine or blood technician out here in the street.”

Subsequently agreeing and submitting to a chemical test should never be deemed a refusal once you finally arrive at a location where there is actually a breath test machine or blood vampire.

California considered the problem in a San Diego DMV hearing. There was not a blood or breath test at the time of the offer & initial refusal. They were in the street.

“There was no available test pending at the time of the initial refusal, and thus even the admitted delay in consenting to the test did not make any difference under all the circumstances, with respect to the main purposes of the statute (obtaining an effective test and keeping impaired drivers off the road). Since the purposes of the statute are not mainly punitive in nature, the Department’s interpretation of these facts is unduly strict.” [Eberle v DMV (DCA4 - 2/23/07) 2007 Cal. App.Unpub. LEXIS 1487, citing Ellis v. Pierce, (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1561]

Eberle v DMV (DCA4 – 2/23/07) 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1487 was a San Diego refusal case mentioned in this new "Refusal" Article by a San Diego DUI criminal defense attorney. San Diego’s Court of Appeals essentially held:

When a person arrested refuses chemical test to Cop No. 1, but a delay occurs and person is handed over to Cop No. 2 who is clueless about any chemical test refusal.

Cop No. 2 says, “Will you submit to blood or breath?” Person then says, “Blood.” And blood is duly drawn.

At the San Diego Administrative Per Se hearing, DMV abused its discretion by concluding Respondent refused. On writ, trial court says: “Not really a refusal.”

DMV appeals, Court of Appeals says trial court used independent judgment and had substantial evidence to overrule DMV Hearing Officer. But the court noted: “He admitted that in his own testimony. But the problem I have with it is this was no test being administered or likely to be administered then. Perhaps if the officer had pulled out the . . . device and he said no I’m not going to blow into that, it might be a little stronger case for a refusal. But this was no ability, this was no intent at that time to give a test. And that’s why I’m concerned, is the time of this and the location. Saying out on the street corner, no, I don’t want to take any of your tests versus being in a lab room saying you have to choose between that breath machine or a blood draw and saying no way, I’m not going to give you anything. To me those are two different situations. The timing and location [are] significantly different.”

In real life, people often hesitate. Humans frequently change their minds. In Re Smith, 115 Idaho 808, 770 P. 2d 817 (Ct. App 1989) allowed a driver to change his mind and recant the refusal. Practical courts reasonably understand this.

Courts have adopted differing views as to whether or not a driver should be allowed to cure his prior refusal and under what circumstances can a driver cure or rescind a prior refusal. Respondent urges the Department to adopt the more flexible standard which has been adopted by several other states including Idaho, New Mexico, and Kansas. In Standish v. Dept. of Revenue, 235 Kan. 900, 683 P.2d 1276 (1984) the Supreme Court of Kansas adopted a five part test to determine whether a driver could legally effect a cure or rescission.

Lawyers reasonably content that the administration of the test should be encouraged and the person arrested should be given every reasonable opportunity to submit to it. For this reason, we hold that an initial refusal may be changed or rescinded, and if rescinded in accordance with the following rules, cures the prior refusal.

To be effective, the subsequent consent must be made:

(1) within a reasonable time after the prior first refusal;

(2) when a test administered upon the subsequent consent would still be accurate;

(3) when testing equipment is still readily available;

(4) when honoring the request will result in no substantial inconvenience or expense to the police; and

(5) when the individual requesting the test has been in the custody or the arresting officer and under observation for the whole time since arrest.

Standish v. Dept. of Revenue, 683 P.2d 1276, 1280 (1984)

Monday, November 21, 2011

Ethics at the joke of taxpayer money, California attorney prosecutors compete to "take the most cases to trial" including DUI cases that should settle

Ethics at the joke of taxpayer money, California attorney prosecutors compete to "take the most cases to trial" including DUI cases that should be settled.

Competition among prosecuting lawyers in the Ventura County District Attorney's Office escalated.

The latest game? Which California criminal prosecuting attorney could take the most cases to trial during the last quarter of the year.

Low and behold, it was rightfully snuffed out by DA management but not before judges and California criminal defense lawyers learned of the game.

Six days after the competition was launched by a supervisor in the District Attorney's Office, an email was sent to Superior Court Judge Vincent O'Neill stating that the competition was stopped as soon as management had learned about it. James Ellison, the second in command at the DA's office, had heard that a copy of the email detailing the competition had made its way to judges.

Ellison told the judge in his email that he ordered Catherine Voelker, the supervisor of the Narcotics and Misdemeanors Unit, to tell her staff to end the competition one day after she had announced it.

"I would like to assure the court that no 'trial competition' is taking place," Ellison told the judge. Ellison said such a competition would have been inappropriate.

"Please be assured that the District Attorney's Office takes its ethical responsibilities seriously. We know that seeking justice is not a matter of trial statistics and obtaining a just result does not always require a case going to trial," Ellison wrote.

Ellison would not comment further on Friday, saying his email explains what happened. Because it is a personnel matter, he would not say whether any action was taken against Voelker.

In an interview, Voelker said her email was misinterpreted. She said it was sent in a "lighthearted fashion" to encourage her staff to work hard in seeking justice for crime victims and the community.

Voelker said the office subscribed to highly ethical standards and that a prerequisite for taking any case to trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But a local defense attorney blasted the office, saying it was playing games with serious criminal cases at the expense of taxpayers.

"This is absolutely appalling," said attorney Jay Leiderman, who is an information officer with the Ventura County Criminal Defense Bar Association.

"Ethics are obviously a joke to that office," he said, noting how a popular YouTube video about a "honey badger" was used to motivate participants.

Voelker said her follow-up email was sent Oct. 11, the day after she announced the trial competition, which was set to run Oct. 11 to Dec. 31. She said she will do what it takes "100 times" to correct anyone's misunderstanding of what she was trying to do.

But Leiderman said it is almost unimaginable that someone in a management position at the District Attorney's Office could concoct a competition that rewards prosecutors who try the most cases.

Voelker's email outlined the goal of the competition to her staff and listed rewards the winner could receive. She encouraged the staff to learn from the "honey badger" — star of the YouTube video that went viral — that bit the head off a snake.

"Win, lose, or draw, your goal is to try as many cases as possible between now and the end of the year," the email stated.

The incentives offered to the winners are:

-- Assisting in the prosecution of a felony narcotics case.

-- Helping in the preparation and execution of a narcotics-related search warrant.

-- Watching a drug buy using a confidential informant.

Defense attorney Philip Dunn of Westlake Village said he found it very difficult to understand why a supervisor at the District Attorney's Office who trains new lawyers would want to disregard some of the most basic ethics of the profession.

"I think it is unethical to emphasize having trials regardless of whether you win or lose," said Dunn, who has been practicing criminal law for 29 years.

Voelker told prosecutors in her office to take a lesson from the "beloved and fearless honey badger" when a defense attorney threatens to take a case to trial if prosecutors don't dismiss it and apologize for wasting their time.

"Like the honey badger suffering a temporary setback after getting bit by a King Cobra, we sometimes get ambushed by the opposition when they surprise us with witness statements outlining a purported defense to the charges. Honey badger don't care! The honey badger is only temporarily thwarted when he is rendered unconscious by venom, but then he gets back up and bites the head off the King Cobra!" Voelker wrote.

When prosecutors are threatened by defense lawyers that they are going to court, Voelker told them to look them in the eye, laugh and "remind them that trials are what you do best."

Voelker encouraged prosecutors to dig in, tough it out and attack the weaknesses of the witness statement.

"Then, for sport, bite off the witness' head and spit it out at the feet of the defense attorney," she said in her email.

Leiderman said he couldn't believe a manager in the DA's office could think this way when people's lives are at stake.

"Laugh at them, really? You should review the case to see if it is meritorious," he said.

Leiderman believes many misdemeanor cases are going to trial so young prosecutors can get courtroom experience and pile up trial statistics for the DA so he can ask for more taxpayer money to prosecute cases.

Ellison said Leiderman is one of the DA's chief critics, never missing an opportunity to attack the office.

"Since nothing had occurred, you can take his comments with a grain of salt," he said.

Voelker said Leiderman's remarks are simply not true and that prosecutors don't take their responsibilities lightly.

"I can assure you, we are not playing games here," she said. "We don't go to trial just for the sake of going to trial."

In her lengthy follow-up email after the competition was announced, Voelker said the office has an ethical obligation to review each case and only take those to trial for which there is sufficient evidence.

"First and foremost, no one in this office expects you to take a case to trial where there is insufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt," Voelker said in the email to 15 people. If a case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it must be dismissed, she stated.

"An important thing for everyone to remember is that you must, never, ever, sacrifice your ethics to gain advantage," she said in ending her email.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Rising Blood Alcohol Level Can Be a Viable Defense at DMV Hearings and in California DUI Court once this attorney's new Article is considered

If you drink alcohol but it does not amount to an unlawful level of .08% at the time you were driving in California, the DMV should restore your driving privileges, upon request by your lawyer.

A driver whose BAC is rising due to recent consumption of drinks prior to driving should be given a fair and reasonable hearing as to what his or her true BAC is at the time of driving.

The time of driving is the real inquiry, attorneys know.

Sure, one's BAC can be over .08% at the time of the test, but the test is done much later than the driving. Once the DUI police stop the driver, the driving is over. It is at that moment that the true BAC must be determined. Because if it is .07% or less, than you should prevail. How can we determine that when the test X amount of minutes later is .08% or more?

As long as your alcohol was still absorbing at the time of driving, there are a number of important technical and scientific principles that should be considered by DMV. To get DMV to do this, your DUI attorney asks the Department of Motor Vehicles to officially notice the required scientific or technical information.

On November 20, 2011, San Diego DUI defense lawyer Rick Mueller published instructions and and DMV resources assisting attorneys to do this and how it can help in your case. Click here for that new article.

Friday, November 18, 2011

San Diego Police Department DUI Officer Goes Down in "Sex for No - DUI" Case

California jurors took more notes in the latest San Diego "NO DUI for Sex" scandal trial than any other jury according to the Judge presiding over the case.

Commenting jurors who delivered the Guilty Verdict at yesterday's San Diego Superior Court trial of the former San Diego Police Department Officer say they were most swayed by the damaging testimony of "Jane Doe" who was taken into the bathroom of the 7/11 on J Street where she took off her panties and was allegedly sexually assaulted.

Unlike certain folks at Penn State, she reported the sexual assault. It didn't take long for scent-smelling police investigators to record conversations with the former San Diego Police Officer who handled downtown DUI cases. Surveillance camera footage from the convenience store corroborated "Jane's" account.

The powers at be arrested the poor cop who was fired by SDPD. Now he awaits a state prison sentence where he may not be as popular as he was in the Gaslamp District. He was acquitted of some charges so his San Diego criminal defense lawyers did a pretty good job.

He was, however, found guilty of assault and battery by an officer, asking for a bribe and misdemeanor false imprisonment. Is he considered a "first-offender" if he has no prior record? For reasons based on the evidence presented at trial, California DUI attorneys suggest NOT.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

So "that's what a California DMV hearing is all about" after a DUI arrest - attorneys explain, lawyers show how to fight drunk driving mess

Wednesday's mid-week tip

California Lawyers challenging DMV's suspension process begin timely and on the right note. First there must be a request for an APS hearing. It's important to be experienced in these forums as DMV's rules, DMV laws and DMV procedures are different than anything most attorneys deal with on a regular basis.

A DMV hearing is presided over by a DMV hearing officer but not a real judge - a state governmental employee of the DMV not trained in law who acts as both prosecutor and judge.

Unfair as it is, she or he can legally object to your evidence, give it whatever weight he or she wants to, rule on her or his own objection, dually engage DUI lawyers, and admit or not admit either party's evidence.



In San Diego County, the Driver Safety Officer begins with presentation of evidence in the form of documents and/or witnesses.

A Driver Safety Officer offers the San Diego drunk driving / DUI police report, DMV records, San Diego DUI alcohol reports and the important California DUI officer's sworn statement entitled a "DS 367." With no Fifth Amendment right at the hearing, DUI lawyers 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.




A DUI lawyers' defenses at an APS hearing are versatile and technical. Common San Diego DUI / DMV proof issues provide bases for stopping a possible suspension.




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




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









California DUI Attorneys should start here:

San Diego DUI Lawyers

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

When a California DUI Judge wants to get rid of a headache, the motion to suppress/dismiss may be a reasonable hat to hang his hat on, lawyers say

The DUI case against freelance specialty writer Peter Lance on Tuesday was dismissed, ruling that Lance’s delay at a green light didn’t provide enough legal basis for a police officer to pull him over.

Lance no longer must defend California DUI charges arising out of a 1/1/11 arrest.

He wrote a series of controversial articles for the Santa Barbara News-Press about his arrest and investigation into the credibility of arresting officer Kasi Beutel.

Lance claimed his signature, and those of other DUI defendants, was forged on police report documents, relinquishing his right to have blood samples taken that could be retested later. The Santa Barbara Police Department has denied the allegations and has a 90-day hold for original documents, witnesses and familiar attorneys have indicated.

During the pre-trial DUI hearings in court, discussions focused on whether authorities had knowingly destroyed Lance’s original Trombetta waiver and whether Beutel had acted appropriately.

In dismissing the DUI case based on contributions by prominent DUI defense lawyers and minds, His Honor “did not find there was any misconduct on the part of any of the involved officers, including officer Kasi Beutel or any member of the District Attorney’s Office” and found officer Bruno Peterson’s decision to stop Lance’s car was “not unreasonable.”

Lance, who said he had been drinking champagne earlier in the evening, was stopped at a green light, with his head looking downward toward his lap for 3 to 5 seconds, which prompted the officer to pull him over.

The DUI case spurred a discussion into the Police Department’s lack of patrol vehicle video cameras, and a grand jury report urged the department to implement them.

The Santa Barbara City Council put off outfitting its police fleet with cameras until the next budget cycle, but one manufacturer offered a trial use of its cameras in a handful of cars. That would help with truth in DUI cases.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Top 9 Tips for DUI Lawyers

Top 9 Tips for DUI Lawyers

Defending a DUI case can be tricky – especially if there are several negative factors stacked up against your client. But the good news is, it’s not impossible. There are many things DUI accident attorneys can do to successfully defend clients and help protect their rights if accused of a DUI.

This article courtesy of the accident lawyer experts at Accidents.com.

The following tips will help you make big strides toward a positive outcome – and most of all, helping your client move on with their life:

• Be polite at all times – Appeal to the jury by being professional, courteous, and polite at all times:
o Dress appropriately and have your client do the same – Professional business clothing like a business suit, skirt, or nice slacks. You should also advise your client to keep jewelry to a minimum.
o Don’t grimace during negative testimony – Even if what’s being stated about your client is negative, keep in mind – you’ll always have the opportunity to address it later and explain any of these negative statements.
o It’s okay to smile – If something humorous comes up during the trial, don’t be afraid to chuckle (as long as the judge is doing the same). You don’t need to stay 100% straight-faced the whole time.
• Make sure your opening statement is strong – The opening statement is the first thing the jury and judge will hear, so it’s the ideal time to tell your client’s side of the story. Make sure your statement immediately strikes against the jury’s presumption of guilt. For example: If the report shows your client performed well in the field sobriety test, make sure you let the jury know that.
• Keep your defense simple – Members of the jury are likely citizens of your community, so they’re not well versed on DUI laws. Keep your defense simple and let them know exactly what happened and why. This will be much more effective than an elaborate story.
• Emphasize cooperation – If your client was cordial and cooperative with the police officer, be sure to let the jury know that. If you have proof through a video or audio recording, even better. Cooperative people are viewed in a much more positive light.
• Explain Breathalyzer and blood alcohol tests – Many members of the general public don’t know the facts behind Breathalyzer and blood alcohol tests; they just know what they’ve learned from a friend, family member, or coworker who’ve been involved in a DUI case. Let them know the facts behind it, how the testing process works, and how results are measured. The more they can understand about the process, the better.
• Let them know exactly what you want – Perhaps most important of all is letting the jury know exactly what you want. You’ve spent long hours on the case, and it would be a shame if you didn’t tell the jury what you wanted. For example: If you want your client acquitted of all charges, make that known.

This is just a start to the many things you should know when involved with a DUI case – but each of them can be a big help in protecting your client’s rights.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

From Dream Teams of Attorneys to Premier DUI Solo Practitioner Lawyer Specialists, it's always good to save for a rainy day

OJ Simpson's Dream Team of California Lawyers was not cheap but was apparently worth it. Conrad Murray's Dream Team of Nationwide All-Star Attorneys was not enough to beat the Michael Jackson death rap. DUI cases get more expensive for those accused whether celebrities or common folks.

Good money can be spent on the right drunk driving attorney. You don't have to sell book rights to pay for it. A simple savings for a rainy day can mean the difference between whether or nor you feel the negative consequences a San Diego California DUI. Since it's been raining, it's never too soon to begin saving. Even a small lawyer fee war chest can mean a significant difference.

With the holidays approaching, it's better not to drink and drive; but if you do, you want to be able to afford a quality DUI criminal defense attorney. You don't want to be stuck applying for a California public defender lawyer based on no job and no assets. You don't need a Brink's truck. You usually just need a reasonable bank account.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Attorney's simple overview of the 2 separate DUI and .08% BAC charges in California

California features 2 dimensions in a DUI situation.

1) The DUI charge asks whether the driver was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Was he or she impaired to safely operate an automobile with the caution characteristic of a sober person. The driver is evaluated at the time of the stop.

How does this charge play out? Well, police tend to look for the driver’s poor, unusual or irregular driving maneuvers, any failure to perfectly perform field sobriety exercises, the smell of alcoholic beverage on the driver's breath, and physical appearance in his or her body which allegedly may be tied to impairment.

DUI lawyers counter with the things the driver did right while driving, the things done correctly on the acrobatics and gymnastics, the smell being consistent with recent ingestion of alcohol and a possible rising blood alcohol level (lower at time of driving - higher at time of test), and other physical explanations as to purported signs or symptoms which are normal or non-DUI related.


2) The chemical test charge. This is not about impairment. It's about a number or estimate of the driver's BAC. The attorney prosecutor must show the driver's blood alcohol concentration was at or exceeded California's legal limit of .08%

DUI laws in California are the strictest in the United States. DUI convictions cause months, decades, or even a lifetime of adverse ramifications. California DUI laws are so complicated. The number of variables and legal issues in a DUI case appear limitless.

California's DUI criminal defense attorneys should have a proper legal education and fundamental application vis a vis practical experience in testing and defending California’s DUI laws.

Obviously retaining a California DUI criminal defense lawyer is a priority upon being arrested for DUI. Internet, worldwide web research on Google, Yelp, and Avvo are fairly critical in one's decision. Reviews are helpful.

Professional drunk driving lawyers constantly preserve rights in light of intricacies of DUI law. You need one for a proper defense, plain and simple.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Closing arguments feature football analogies in San Diego California "Sex" for "No DUI arrest" case - the game is over as the jury gets to decide

Sex for No DUI case prosecutor's closing -

Anthony Arevalos inquired from women he stopped while a San Diego DUI Police Officer:

“What can you do for me?” “What can you offer me?” and “What is it worth to you to get out of a DUI?”

The prosecutor affirmed Arevalos did not specifically use the word “sex” in many of the contacts. Yet, there was little question in the women’s minds as to what he was seeking.
“This officer had one thing in mind, and it was sexual in nature,” she said.

The California attorney prosecutor implied the police officer was looking for some kind of sex-related bribe. “It’s very clearly not about money.”

At one point she explained how it's a football game. The cop played well in the first half, but now the second half is not looking too good.

Arevalos’ San Diego criminal defense attorney, Gretchen von Helms, closed, contending all of the women had been drinking alcohol before they were stopped, which likely affected their perception and memory.

The lawyer then played in court a music video for the song “Last Friday Night,” by Katy Perry, and recited some of the lyrics. This video shows a young girl assessing the damage around her after a wild party and struggling to recall what happened.

“That’s why alcohol is such an important part of this case, and it goes directly to credibility and believability of these witnesses,” the San Diego criminal defense lawyer pointed out.

Arevalos, an 18 year San Diego Police Department DUI & traffic division officer, was arrested in March and charged with 21 felony counts including sexual battery, asking for a bribe, assault by an officer and false imprisonment. The charges relate to seven alleged victims, three of whom accuse the officer of touching their bodies in some intimate way.

The attorney prosecutor incidents that occurred between September 2009 and March of this year and the computer evidence shows that Arevalos kept the women at traffic stops much longer than was necessary.

The prosecutor presented evidence from other women who testified that Arevalos had behaved inappropriately during their contact with him. Their testimony does not relate directly to the charges in this case but was offered to show a pattern of conduct by the officer.

Two young women testified that Arevalos stopped them in the Gaslamp in January 2010 and cited one of them for driving on a suspended license. He then drove the women home to Mission Beach, where he asked for a glass of water and was “hanging out” in their condo for about an hour until nearly 4 a.m.

One of the women said Arevalos tore up the ticket and threw the pieces in the air, saying he was “making it rain a misdemeanor.”

Arevalos’ lawyer pointed out the alleged victims’ alcohol consumption when considering their testimony. Many of the woman had blood-alcohol contents at or above the .08% legal limit for drivers in California.

One woman, who was under 21 in December 2010, had a BAC of .05%. Because she was a minor at the time of the traffic stop, any alcohol consumption on her part would have been illegal.

Von Helms pointed out a number of the alleged victims have filed claims with the city, a precursor to a lawsuit, and expect to get a benefit — such as having their DUI cases dismissed — in exchange for their testimony. 2 were stopped again on suspicion of a San Diego DUI after their contact with Arevalos. “If they’re getting a benefit, … they tend to shade the truth,” reminded the attorney.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Bicycle DUI Death & Hit and Run could mean 15 years in California State Prision, after attorneys argued today in San Diego Superior Court in Vista

California does not treat DUI drivers nicely. And when you kill someone while DUI, few attorneys can prevent a lengthy visit to the state pen.

Being .25% BAC and fleeing the scene of the fatal crash in Carlsbad California means a DUI trial on gross vehicular manslaughter, hit-and-run and DUI allegations, a San Diego Superior Court judge said today.

Younger than her BAC, Julianne Elyse Thomson is scheduled for a January 23, 2012 DUI jury trial. She could do 15 years if convicted in the death of 64-year-old Arthur John Jacobs of Vista.

Near El Camino Real and Cassia Street around 9:45 p.m., he was hit on July 27 while riding his bicycle to work at a local hotel. There can be questions of bicycling safety at that time of night; it remains to be seen how that may help her California DUI criminal defense attorney, if at all.

The DUI driver crashed into a curb and some bushes, then drove at high speed into an apartment complex parking lot, lawyers are told.

Thomson was found about 15 minutes later hiding in some bushes on the opposite side of the apartment complex, where she had parked her car, attorneys are informed.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Traffic defense lawyers in Southern California who provide essential service at a reasonable cost

If you received a traffic ticket in Southern California - not a criminal DUI case - you may be looking at getting an effective & reasonable defense attorney to represent you.

Below are a number of successful criminal defense lawyers who handle traffic infractions, for San Diego, Imperial and Orange Counties, southern California:


San Diego County

David Pflaum
400 South Melrose Drive,
Suite 211
Vista, CA 92081
Phone: (760) 806-4333
Fax: (760) 945-0941
http://www.davidpflaum.com/index.php

"Ms. Ticket"
Elizabeth Aronson
Law Office of Elizabeth Aronson
Post Office Box 235774
Encinitas, California 92023
EA@EAronsonLaw.com
Office: 760.685.8242
Fax:760.487.1564
http://www.lawyerratingz.com/ratings/8109/Lawyer-Elizabeth-Aronson.html

"Mr. Ticket"
Mitch Mehdy
3990 9th Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
(619) 563-1515
(619) 563-5538 Fax
http://mrtrafficticket.com/wordpress/


Imperial County

Robert Espinosa
1041 West State Street
El Centro, CA 92243
(760) 353-1410
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/92243-ca-robert-espinosa-40046.html


Orange County

Mark Sutherland
Traffic Ticket Attorneys
1525 E 17th St Ste C
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 543-8885
www.TRAFFICATTORNEYS.COM


In the past, the San Diego County DUI Law Center has recommended folks in need of assistance to these attorneys. Of course, there is no guarantee. The only guarantee is that if you do NOT fight your traffic ticket, you will lose and suffer the California penal consequences including fines, points, possible license suspension etc. Obviously, if you hire one of these lawyers, you may not prevail but at least you will have a chance.

Monday, November 7, 2011

California's outstanding lawyers spearheading DUI defense cases in San Diego relay important information affecting you within 10 days of drunk driving

California's outstanding lawyers spearheading DUI defense cases in San Diego relay important information affecting you within 10 days of a drunk driving contact:

10. To avoid loss of driver's license in California, a DUI lawyer enjoys no more than 10 calendar days to request a hearing, stay, new temporary, discovery and a fair hearing officer.

Common pitfall is that if you - rather than your attorney - contact DMV to schedule a date ultimately conflicting with your San Diego DUI lawyer's calendar, DMV will not automatically reschedule.

9. 10 days runs from the issue date of the not-so-pretty pink SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE. Time is of the essence, meaning you should retain a San Diego DUI attorney without further delay.

8. Pink ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION ORDER AND TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE is the California DMV paper usually received after jail.

7. California DMV will probably take action against your driving privileges even though you may not have received this important DMV paper.

6. If you have a license from a state other than California, even if the San Diego DUI officer did not take your license, your state may also take reciprocal action against your driving privileges under the Interstate Compact.

5. A TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE ENDORSEMENT is valid for thirty days. Once a DMV hearing is requested within ten (10) days, your DMV TEMPORARY will be extended. That stay (delay) of any suspension until the outcome of your DMV hearing is determined.

4. Of course, do not confuse this initial 30 day TEMPORARY DRIVER LICENSE with your court date!

That is because 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. 3 issues typically are litigated at the San Diego DMV hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of pink DMV paper.)

These are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you, and whether the San Diego DUI breath or blood test evidence is unreliable, untrustworthy or admissible.

2. California DMV has the burden of proof to prevail on all issues. If DMV meets the burden of proof on less than all issues, you win!

1. California DMV lawyers need to prevail on one of the DMV issues to preserve your license, to avoid a reissue fee, and/or to avoid an expensive SR-22 filing!

Saturday, November 5, 2011

1 Bad Donut does not make a whole Donut Shop Bad - San Diego Police Department scrambles more than weekend QB's in "No DUI for Sex" Scandal

Should San Diego police department be responsible for a bad cop? Not every huge governmental entity is perfect. And what if no one know at SDPD about this guy?

Scrambling is often seen in weekend football games.

Now San Diego officials have to scramble as they maneuver around pointed questions as to whether and when they knew about former San Diego police Officer Anthony Arevalos' No DUI Deals for Sex?

This "No Drunk Driving for Sexual Favors" trial tells us that some within San Diego Police Department may have come across red flags as early as 2009, including an unofficial report made by an alleged victim to a detective, as well as inappropriate photos of women sent to a fellow traffic officer.

Whether the officers had enough information to act on or violated an obligation to report what they knew remains unclear.

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne declined last week to comment on any aspect of the case until the trial is over. He said he does not want to taint the jury or affect the trial’s outcome.

This No DUI for Sex case “should be a wake up call for any department that this could happen,” said Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for an independent review office that monitors the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. It can be tough to break the code-of-silence mentality among law enforcement officers.

“Police officers on the same shift have to rely on each other for safety and security. They tend to be cohesive units,” said Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor. “Knowing the potential jeopardy placed on an officer by reporting potential conduct makes it a very hard choice.”

San Diego police officials claim the first indication of any wrongdoing by Arevalos came in February 2010, when they received a complaint from a woman who said she was sexually assaulted by him in the back seat of his police car.

The allegations were investigated and forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office for review, but no charges were filed.

When asked about the outcome of that investigation, Lansdowne has said: “If I thought that Officer Arevalos had committed a crime I would have fired him.”

During the trial, one woman testified that she was stopped by Arevalos on Sept. 28, 2009.

She said she took a breath test at police headquarters, after which the officer allegedly suggested they “work something out.” Although he never used the word “sex,” the woman testified that she thought he allegedly wanted something sexual (in exchange for no DUI).

Ultimately he let her go without citing her, but he told her he allegedly would return to collect his “favor,” the woman said.

Later, she described the incident to a co-worker at Dick’s Last Resort, a downtown restaurant, who advised her to tell the story to a police detective she knew.

The detective, James Clark, testified that he called the woman, but she did not give him the name of the officer or the date of the incident. Clark said he told the woman to report it to the Police Department’s internal affairs unit.

But the woman testified she didn’t report the incident to police because she didn’t want anything to interfere with her plans to leave the state. She was also concerned, she said, that she could still be charged with DUI.

The results of her breath test showed she had a blood-alcohol content of .16%, twice the California DUI limit of .08% BAC.

The department won’t say at this time what obligation, if any, Clark had to report the woman’s story to a supervisor or internal affairs.

The department’s procedures on taking and investigating citizen complaints only addresses the formal complaint process, which was not used in this instance. In a section updated in May, the procedures state that department members who suspect another employee of a crime must report it to their supervisor, or report it on a new confidential complaint hotline or to the internal affairs lieutenant.

The hotline was one of several steps Lansdowne took this year to try to curb police misconduct. Arevalos’ case was one of at least nine misconduct investigations to make headlines at the department this year.

Another former officer who worked with Arevalos in the traffic division testified that Arevalos sent him photos of scantily clad women, one of whom was topless, in December 2009. They are not pictures of any alleged victims in this case and they were not shown to the jury.

Last week, a traffic officer came forward and told police officials he had witnessed disturbing behavior from Arevalos about six to eight months before his arrest.

The incidents included seeing Arevalos with a pair of panties at the trunk of his patrol car and witnessing him “all over” a woman during a traffic stop, Deputy District Attorney Sherry Thompson told Judge Jeffrey Fraser in talks outside of the jury’s presence.

The officer, Freddie Thornton, also reported that Arevalos told him he had downloaded photos onto his cellphone of up-the-skirt pictures from another officer’s investigative file.

It was unknown why the officer didn’t report the conduct before now. Fraser ruled that Thornton would not be allowed to testify.

In a search warrant affidavit obtained in April, a source told police that Arevalos had a “well-known history of police misconduct” and that he would keep photographs of women he contacted while on-duty. The photos allegedly showed women in various stages of undress while performing sexual acts with Arevalos.

Friday, November 4, 2011

"Do the police need to read me my Miranda rights after arrested for a DUI in California?"

"Do the police need to read me my Miranda rights after arrested for a DUI in California?"

That frequent question is a good one. After all, on TV, the police usually read something like:

"You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed.
You have the right to remain silent.
Everything you say can and will be used against you."

What about in drunk driving cases? Do California cops need to so advise?

The answer is "No."

Why not?

Basically the issue becomes "moot."

How so?

Remember The Implied Consent Law in California! For details, please see this new article by California's San Diego County DUI Law Center's lawyer, Rick Mueller, published today.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Halloween is included in California DMV's 10 day deadline. There was a DUI checkpoint in San Diego near College, on Montezuma, near State: 8 arrests

Halloween is included in California DMV's 10 day deadline. There was a DUI checkpoint in San Diego near College, on Montezuma, near State. 8 people were arrested for San Diego DUI. A couple thousand cars went through. Wow say San Diego California DUI attorneys who post locations of roadblocks at this free site.

Lawyers appearing in California DUI cases know what to do within 10 days of an unfortunate arrest:

10. To maintain California privileges after a San Diego DUI arrest, a defense lawyer has just 10 days, including Halloween 2011, to contact DMV!

Remember if you yourself contact DMV to schedule a date which ends up conflicting with your San Diego DUI attorney's calendar, DMV will not reschedule and you may not get the San Diego DUI lawyer of your choice.

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 think you might be late, contact a San Diego DUI lawyer 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 San Diego DUI 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 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. Please 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 San Diego DMV hearing if you completed a chemical test. (See reverse side of pink DMV paper.)

Issues are whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you, and whether the San Diego DUI breath or blood test evidence is inadmissible, rebuttable, unreliable, inaccurate and/or untrustworthy.

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 DMV attorneys have to do is successfully knock out just 1 of the DMV issues to preserve your license, to avoid a reissue fee, and/or to avoid an expensive SR-22 filing!

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Steps to get off Probation after a San Diego California DUI - things to do before hiring an attorney

In this new helpful Article, San Diego County DUI Law Center's attorney Rick Mueller explains how to get off probation after a drunk driving arrest.

Being on probation prevents you from expunging or dismissing a California DUI from your record, precluding work or school opportunities.

Being on DUI probation also means you could have your driving privileges for at least another year if you have a breath test of .01 percent or more, assuming your San Diego California DUI lawyer does not prevail at the DMV Probation Violation administrative hearing.

So click here to check out what you need to do in order to end probation, allowing you to get on with your life.

Friday, October 28, 2011

DUI checkpoint in San Diego State University Area Saturday Halloween Weekend night.

Be careful - Halloween this October, the Avoid the 14 San Diego County California DUI Task Force reminds everyone to keep the party off the road because they will be out making arrests.

Roving DUI Saturation Patrols will be out in force looking to stop and arrest ‘Drunk’ and
‘Buzzed’ drivers this Halloween weekend. There will also be a DUI/Driver License Checkpoint
near SDSU on Saturday October 29th, to deter and lower impaired driving in the region.

Here's updated DUI checkpoint locations for San Diego California.

Recap of San Diego California's Sex Favors for No DUI Prosecution Offers resumes Monday as attorneys battle it out with interesting testimony

"Sex" favor for no - DUI deals starts up again Monday.

In opening statements, Deputy District Attorney Sherry Thompson had told a jury the Gaslamp Quarter was a "board" for a game played by San Diego Police Department officer Arevalos called "'What Can You Offer Me?'" He used his position of authority to barter and trade sexual favors from purported female DUI offenders.

Also at the start of this case, San Diego California Criminal Defense lawyer Jan Ronis explained to the jury they should keep an open mind because the women were under the influence of alcohol when they were contacted by San Diego Police Department's man on trial. That could "skew" both perception of events and memories of the witnesses.

A number of the women filed claims against the city of San Diego; 2 were arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence after allegations against the SDPD cop were made.

Here's yesterday's highlights:

The nursing student stopped and suspected of DUI by former San Diego police officer Arevalos who is accused of trying to elicit sexual favors from women he stopped in the Gaslamp testified he asked her if she could "show him something" after she begged him not to arrest her for DUI. She said he made her blow into a breathalyzer after she did 2 FST's. He told her that she failed the breath test and wondered what she would do in exchange for not going to jail. She offered the officer money, but he asked her if she would do anything "out of the books" or "under the table." When it became clear he didn't want money, Arevalos asked "If I could show him something." She agreed, and Arevalos told her to drive to another location around the corner, and he followed. The woman said Arevalos again asked if she could show him something, but she gave him a bogus phone number instead. "I said, 'Call me sometime,' and I left," the woman testified.

The woman is one of seven women prosecutors plan to call in the case, some of whom were arrested for DUI and some who were allegedly sexually assaulted and let go.

Arevalos was with the San Diego Police Department for 18 years before being fired earlier this year after the filing of charges, including assault under the color of authority, sexual battery by restraint, false imprisonment and soliciting or receiving a bribe.

Exposure: 19 years in prison if convicted of 21 felony counts.

Earlier in the case, the prosecutor said "Jane Doe" had just ridden on a Mardi Gras float and was trying to get to work when Arevalos pulled her over, DA Thompson said. The young woman was panicked and hyperventilating. "He says, 'Calm down, there are other options.'" "She doesn't know what to do, and the negotiations begin." Arevalos ended up rubbing her private parts in a 7-Eleven bathroom. The GPS confirmed the officer's presence at the convenience store, and employees identified him.

Thompson said another alleged victim flashed her breasts at Arevalos, and he rubbed under the underwear and bra of a third woman. There's more to come.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

California's medical marijuana proponents filed a lawsuit against the United States of America today with goal to quash a recent crackdown

October 27, 2011 2:17 pm. News Flash for California DUI lawyers representing marijuana growers

California's medical marijuana proponents filed a lawsuit against the United States of America today. The goal is to quash a recent crackdown on the state's storefront pot dispensaries, claiming government officials have overstepped their constitutional authority by not respecting how local officials have chosen to regulate pot stores and growers.

The lawsuit filed in San Francisco by the advocacy group Americans for Safe Access states that recent raids of licensed dispensaries and letters warning city officials they could be prosecuted for trying to regulate medical marijuana cultivation and sales constitute an illegal power grab under the 10th Amendment. The amendment awards to states legislative authority not explicitly reserved for the federal government.

"ASA does not challenge the congressional authority to enact laws criminalizing the possession and/or control of marijuana, as this issue has been resolved in the government's favor," Americans for Safe Access Chief Counsel Joe Elford wrote in the complaint. "It is, rather, the government's tactics, and the unlawful assault on state sovereignty they represent, that form the gravamen of ASA's claim."

The suit names Attorney General Eric Holder and Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney for Northern California, as defendants. Haag's spokesman, Jack Gillund, declined to comment on the case.

Earlier this month, the four federal prosecutors in California announced a broad effort to close pot clubs they claim are located too near places where children gather or are fronts for drug dealing. They have sent letters to landlords renting space to medical marijuana dispensaries they could have their property seized for aiding and abetting criminal enterprises.

Many of the 38 Southern California pot outlets that were targeted in the letters already have closed because landlords, threatened with criminal charges or seizure of their assets, were given just two weeks to evict their tenants. Property owners in the rest of the state were given six weeks to comply.

The lawsuit filed Thursday on behalf of Americans for Safe Access' 20,000 California members does not contradict the right of federal prosecutors to go after property owners. Instead, it challenges their authority to "coerce" local government officials into abandoning procedures for licensing and regulating dispensaries and growers, Elford said.

Since the U.S. attorneys announced their crackdown, officials in Sacramento and Eureka, for example, have suspended plans to issue operating permits to dispensaries that meet specific criteria.

"By directly interfering with the legislative function of the state, they force the state to criminalize activities they do not want to criminalize," Elford said.

Along with an injunction barring the Department of Justice from interfering with dispensaries that meet state and local regulations, the suit seeks the return of 99 marijuana plants that were seized during an Oct. 13 raid of a medical marijuana collective that operated with oversight from the Mendocino County sheriff's department.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

News Release for San Diego County's southern region and Chula Vista DUI Court

October 26, 2011

If arrested in Coronado, National City, Imperial Beach, Chula Vista, Bonita or Otay Mesa, your South County Division San Diego Superior Court is located at 500 Third Ave., Chula Vista, California 91910.

The San Diego County DUI Law Center handles DUI & DMV cases in this area. Attorney Rick Mueller provides quality representation for a reasonable lawyer fee.

Click here for yesterday's new article featuring that part of San Diego County.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Not the right flavor for this favor in the sex for No-DUI case in San Diego California

A little nooky for no DUI? Sounds like a deal right?

It's no a deal that a lady called Melissa took. Please officer, there's no flavor in your favor.

The San Diego police officer offered to receive sex for not charging her with a DUI, allegedly. At least that is what was said in this wild California courtroom today!

Melissa R. claims former SDPD officer Anthony Arevalos was "flirting with (her) and (she) had no idea what was coming next." He insisted on quoting "favors" for letting her go. He even reminded her that he knew where she worked and would come in there to try and get his “favor”.

San Diego prosecuting attorneys maintain the officer preyed on females stopped for suspicion of a a California DUI, molesting some.

Melissa drove her car the wrong way down a one-way street, a common Gaslamp occurrence. Her vehicle registration had expired and she admitted to the then-officer that she had been drinking at her place of employment, a Gaslamp bar and restaurant. The police officer put her in the back of his patrol car and drove her onto San Diego police department property to administer an Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test.

After she blew into the machine a second time, Arevalos said: “’I gotcha. Now we’re going to have to work something out.’”

“I asked him what the results were but he never gave me the number.” Melissa still does not know her BAC. Why did he insist on a favor without showing a flavor of .08% or more?

Melissa said Arevalos never said anything directly sexual to her, didn’t touch her physically but did tell San Diego California criminal defense attorney Jan Ronis: “I know what flirting is.”

5 more victims should testify in the case against him. 5 + this 1 = 19 years prison, possibly.

Monday, October 24, 2011

President of California DUI Lawyers Association Don Bartell behind DUI law for license restriction for second offenders who plead to wet reckless

California DUI Lawyer Specialist Donald Bartell defends drunk driving cases throughout California. A DUI criminal defense lawyer who owns a plane, he flies all over to win DUI cases from San Diego to the northern tip of California. As President of California DUI Lawyers Association, he was the pivotal DUI Attorney in this important DUI law bill allowing second offenders who plead to reckless driving to get a license restriction after just 90 days. It was signed October 9, 2011 by Governor Brown.

BILL NUMBER: AB 520

An act to amend Sections 12813, 13353.3, 13353.4, and 23575 of the
Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

AB 520, Ammiano. Vehicles: reckless driving: suspension of
licenses.
Existing law requires a person's driving privilege to be suspended
upon conviction of specified driving-under-the-influence (DUI)
offenses for one year. Existing law terminates the licensing
suspension if certain conditions are met, including if the person is
eligible to apply for a restricted license. Under existing law, a
person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton
disregard for the safety of a person or property is guilty of
reckless driving. Existing law provides that, when a person is
charged with, and pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, reckless
driving in satisfaction of, or as a substitute for, an original
charge for a DUI, and the court accepts the plea of guilty or nolo
contendere, the conviction is a prior offense for purposes of
specified laws relating to punishments imposed for DUI convictions.
This bill would terminate a driver's license suspension, and make
the person eligible for a restricted driver's license, for a person
convicted of reckless driving in satisfaction of, or substitute for,
an original charge of driving-under-the-influence, if certain
conditions are met, including that the person complete a 90-day
suspension period and install an ignition interlock device. The bill
would require the department to advise the person of the above
conditions. The bill would require that the restricted driver's
license privilege be subject to certain restrictions, including,
among other things, that upon receipt of notification from the
installer that a person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper
with the ignition interlock device, the privilege to operate a motor
vehicle shall immediately be suspended.
The bill would make other technical and conforming changes to
these provisions.


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

SECTION 1. Section 12813 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
12813. (a) The department may, upon issuing a driver's license or
after issuance whenever good cause appears, impose restrictions
suitable to the licensee's driving ability with respect to the type
of, or special mechanical control devices required on, a motor
vehicle which the licensee may operate or impose other restrictions
applicable to the licensee that the department may determine to be
appropriate to assure the safe operation of a motor vehicle by the
licensee.
(b) The department may issue either a special restricted license
or may set forth the restrictions upon the usual license form.
(c) The authority of the department to issue restricted licenses
under this section is subject to Sections 12812, 13352, 13353.3, and
13352.5.
SEC. 2. Section 13353.3 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13353.3. (a) An order of suspension of a person's privilege to
operate a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 13353.2 shall become
effective 30 days after the person is served with the notice pursuant
to Section 13382 or 13388, or subdivision (b) of Section 13353.2.
(b) The period of suspension of a person's privilege to operate a
motor vehicle under Section 13353.2 is as follows:
(1) If the person has not been convicted of a separate violation
of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23140,
23152, or 23153, or Section 191.5 or subdivision (a) of Section 192.5
of the Penal Code, the person has not been administratively
determined to have refused chemical testing pursuant to Section 13353
or 13353.1, or the person has not been administratively determined
to have been driving with an excessive concentration of alcohol
pursuant to Section 13353.2 on a separate occasion, which offense or
occurrence occurred within 10 years of the occasion in question, the
person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended for
four months.
(2) (A) If the person has been convicted of one or more separate
violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or
Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or Section 191.5 or subdivision (a)
of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, the person has been
administratively determined to have refused chemical testing pursuant
to Section 13353 or 13353.1, or the person has been administratively
determined to have been driving with an excessive concentration of
alcohol pursuant to Section 13353.2 on a separate occasion, which
offense or occasion occurred within 10 years of the occasion in
question, the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be
suspended for one year, except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and
(C).
(B) The one-year suspension pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall
terminate if the person has been convicted of a violation arising out
of the same occurrence and all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The person is eligible for a restricted driver's license
pursuant to Section 13352.
(ii) The person installs an ignition interlock device as required
in Section 13352 for that restricted driver's license.
(iii) The person complies with all other applicable conditions of
Section 13352 for a restricted driver's license.
(C) The one-year suspension pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall
terminate after completion of a 90-day suspension period, and the
person shall be eligible for a restricted license if the person has
been convicted of a violation of Section 23103, as specified in
Section 23103.5, arising out of the same occurrence, has no more than
two prior alcohol-related convictions within 10 years, as specified
pursuant to subparagraph (A), and all of the following conditions are
met:
(i) The person satisfactorily provides, subsequent to the
underlying violation date, proof satisfactory to the department of
enrollment in a nine-month driving-under-the-influence program
licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of
Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code that consists
of at least 60 hours of program activities, including education,
group counseling, and individual interview sessions.
(ii) The person agrees, as a condition of the restriction, to
continue satisfactory participation in the program described in
clause (i).
(iii) The person installs an ignition interlock device and submits
the "Verification of Installation" form described in paragraph (2)
of subdivision (h) of Section 13386.
(iv) The person agrees to maintain the ignition interlock device
as required pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 23575.
(v) The person provides proof of financial responsibility, as
defined in Section 16430.
(vi) The person pays all license fees and any restriction fee
required by the department.
(vii) The person pays to the department a fee sufficient to cover
the costs of administration of this paragraph, as determined by the
department.
(D) The department shall advise those persons that are eligible
under subparagraph (C) that after completion of 90 days of the
suspension period, the person may apply to the department for a
restricted driver's license, subject to the conditions set forth in
subparagraph (C).
(E) The restricted driving privilege shall become effective when
the department receives all of the documents and fees required under
subparagraph (C) and remain in effect for at least the remaining
period of the original suspension and until the person provides
satisfactory proof to the department of successful completion of a
driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section
11836 of the Health and Safety Code. The restricted driving privilege
shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) If the driving privilege is restricted under this section,
proof of financial responsibility, as described 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 pursuant to Section 16484 is received by the department.
(ii) For the purposes of this section, enrollment, participation,
and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date
of the current violation. Credit may not be given to a program
activity completed prior to the date of the current violation.
(iii) The department shall terminate the restriction issued
pursuant to this section and shall suspend the privilege to operate a
motor vehicle pursuant to subparagraph (A) immediately upon receipt
of notification from the driving-under-the-influence program that the
person has failed to comply with the program requirements. The
privilege shall remain suspended until the final day of the original
suspension imposed pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(iv) The department shall terminate the restriction issued
pursuant to this section and shall immediately suspend the privilege
to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to subparagraph (A) immediately
upon receipt of notification from the installer that a person has
attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the ignition interlock
device, has removed the device prior to the termination date of the
restriction, or fails three or more times to comply with any
requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition
interlock device ordered pursuant to this section. The privilege
shall remain suspended for the remaining period of the original
suspension imposed pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(3) Notwithstanding any other law, if a person has been
administratively determined to have been driving in violation of
Section 23136 or to have refused chemical testing pursuant to Section
13353.1, the period of suspension shall not be for less than one
year.
(c) If a person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle is
suspended pursuant to Section 13353.2 and the person is convicted of
a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, including, but not limited to,
a violation described in Section 23620, arising out of the same
occurrence, both the suspension under Section 13353.2 and the
suspension or revocation under Section 13352 shall be imposed, except
that the periods of suspension or revocation shall run concurrently,
and the total period of suspension or revocation shall not exceed
the longer of the two suspension or revocation periods.
(d) For the purposes of this section, a conviction of an offense
in any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
Dominion of Canada that, if committed in this state, would be a
violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or
Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or Section 191.5 or subdivision (a)
of Section 192.5 of the Penal Code, is a conviction of that
particular section of the Vehicle Code or Penal Code.
(e) 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 is not eligible for the
restricted driver's license authorized pursuant to this section.
SEC. 3. Section 13353.4 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
13353.4. (a) Except as provided in Section 13353.3, 13353.7, or
13353.8, the driving privilege shall not be restored, and a
restricted or hardship permit to operate a motor vehicle shall not be
issued, to a person during the suspension or revocation period
specified in Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.3.
(b) The privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall not be restored
after a suspension or revocation pursuant to Section 13352, 13353,
13353.1, or 13353.2 until all applicable fees, including the fees
prescribed in Section 14905, have been paid and the person gives
proof of financial responsibility, as defined in Section 16430, to
the department.
SEC. 4. Section 23575 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
23575. (a) (1) In addition to any other law, the court may
require that a person convicted of a first offense violation of
Section 23152 or 23153 install a certified ignition interlock device
on any vehicle that the person owns or operates and prohibit that
person from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped
with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device. The court
shall give heightened consideration to applying this sanction to a
first offense violator with 0.15 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at arrest, or with two or more prior
moving traffic violations, or to persons who refused the chemical
tests at arrest. If the court orders the ignition interlock device
restriction, the term shall be determined by the court for a period
not to exceed three years from the date of conviction. The court
shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in
subdivision (a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in
accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department of
Motor Vehicles shall place the restriction in the person's records in
the Department of Motor Vehicles.
(2) The court shall require a person convicted of a violation of
Section 14601.2 to install an ignition interlock device on any
vehicle that the person owns or operates and prohibit the person from
operating a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped with a
functioning, certified ignition interlock device. The term of the
restriction shall be determined by the court for a period not to
exceed three years from the date of conviction. The court shall
notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in subdivision
(a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in accordance
with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department of Motor
Vehicles shall place the restriction in the person's records in the
Department of Motor Vehicles.
(b) The court shall include on the abstract of conviction or
violation submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles under Section
1803 or 1816, the requirement and term for the use of a certified
ignition interlock device. The records of the department shall
reflect mandatory use of the device for the term ordered by the
court.
(c) The court shall advise the person that installation of an
ignition interlock device on a vehicle does not allow the person to
drive without a valid driver's license.
(d) A person whose driving privilege is restricted by the court
pursuant to this section shall arrange for each vehicle with an
ignition interlock device to be serviced by the installer at least
once every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and
monitor the operation of the device. The installer shall notify the
court if the device is removed or indicates that the person has
attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the
person fails three or more times to comply with a requirement for the
maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device. There
is no obligation for the installer to notify the court if the person
has complied with all of the requirements of this article.
(e) The court shall monitor the installation and maintenance of an
ignition interlock device restriction ordered pursuant to
subdivision (a) or ( l ). If a person fails to comply with
the court order, the court shall give notice of the fact to the
department pursuant to Section 40509.1.
(f) (1) If a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152
or 23153 and the offense occurred within 10 years of one or more
separate violations of Section 23152 or 23153 that resulted in a
conviction, or if a person is convicted of a violation of Section
23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, and is suspended for one year
under Section 13353.3, the person may apply to the Department of
Motor Vehicles for a restricted driver's license pursuant to Section
13352 or 13353.3 that prohibits the person from operating a motor
vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning ignition
interlock device, certified pursuant to Section 13386. The
restriction shall remain in effect for at least the remaining period
of the original suspension or revocation and until all reinstatement
requirements in Section 13352 or 13353.3 are met.
(2) Pursuant to subdivision (g), the Department of Motor Vehicles
shall immediately terminate the restriction issued pursuant to
Section 13352 or 13353.3 and shall immediately suspend or revoke the
privilege to operate a motor vehicle of a person who attempts to
remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, who has the device removed
prior to the termination date of the restriction, or who fails three
or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or
calibration of the ignition interlock device ordered pursuant to
Section 13352 or 13353.3. The privilege shall remain suspended or
revoked for the remaining period of the originating suspension or
revocation and until all reinstatement requirements in Section 13352
or 13353.3 are met.
(g) A person whose driving privilege is restricted by the
Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Section 13352 or 13353.3
shall arrange for each vehicle with an ignition interlock device to
be serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days in order for
the installer to recalibrate the device and monitor the operation of
the device. The installer shall notify the Department of Motor
Vehicles if the device is removed or indicates that the person has
attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the
person fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for
the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device.
There is no obligation on the part of the installer to notify the
department or the court if the person has complied with all of the
requirements of this section.
(h) Nothing in this section permits a person to drive without a
valid driver's license.
(i) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall include information
along with the order of suspension or revocation for repeat offenders
informing them that after a specified period of suspension or
revocation has been completed, the person may either install an
ignition interlock device on any vehicle that the person owns or
operates or remain with a suspended or revoked driver's license.
(j) Pursuant to this section, an out-of-state resident who
otherwise would qualify for an ignition interlock device restricted
license in California shall be prohibited from operating a motor
vehicle in California unless that vehicle is equipped with a
functioning ignition interlock device. An ignition interlock device
is not required to be installed on any vehicle owned by the defendant
that is not driven in California.
(k) If a person has a medical problem that does not permit the
person to breathe with sufficient strength to activate the device,
then that person shall only have the suspension option.
(l) This section does not restrict a court from requiring
installation of an ignition interlock device and prohibiting
operation of a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a
functioning, certified ignition interlock device for a person to whom
subdivision (a) or (b) does not apply. The term of the restriction
shall be determined by the court for a period not to exceed three
years from the date of conviction. The court shall notify the
Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in subdivision (a) of
Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in accordance with
subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department of Motor Vehicles
shall place the restriction in the person's records in the Department
of Motor Vehicles.
(m) For the purposes of this section, "vehicle" does not include a
motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device
that can be installed on a motorcycle. Any person subject to an
ignition interlock device restriction shall not operate a motorcycle
for the duration of the ignition interlock device restriction period.

(n) For the purposes of this section, "owned" means solely owned
or owned in conjunction with another person or legal entity. For
purposes of this section, "operates" includes operating a vehicle
that is not owned by the person subject to this section.
(o) For the purposes of this section, "bypass" includes but is
not limited to, either of the following:
(1) A combination of failing or not taking the ignition interlock
device rolling retest three consecutive times.
(2) An incidence of failing or not taking the ignition interlock
device rolling retest, when not followed by an incidence of passing
the ignition interlock rolling retest prior to turning off the
vehicle's engine.

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Ammiano

FEBRUARY 15, 2011