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

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Can DUI drivers prevent California Police from arresting them for DUI?

"NFL SunDay" Update: Can DUI drivers prevent California Police from arresting them for DUI?

Criminal Defense Lawyers' response originates in Ireland.

Let's face it - Drunk driving in Ireland is common. Check out one true tale:

A major sporting event on TV like the Bears v. Tampa Bay in the UK, a routine Gardai DUI patrol parked outside a local pub.

After the NFL games available on the Sky Channel or Satellite, the drunk driving police noticed a man leaving the bar so impaired that he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the car park for a few minutes, with the Garda quietly observing. After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five vehicles, the man managed to find his car which he fell into. He was there for a few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off. Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off (it was a fine dry night), flicked the indicators on, then off, tooted the horn and then switched on the lights. He moved the vehicle forward a few cm, reversed a little and then remained stationary for a few more minutes as some more vehicles left. At last he pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly down the road. The drunk driving Garda, having patiently waited all this time, now started up the patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man over and carried out a Breathalyzer test. To his amazement the Breathalyzer indicated no evidence of the man having consumed alcohol at all!

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

"I doubt it," said the Irishman, "today I'm just the designated decoy".

Fairly accurate tale.

If needed in your state, there's a California DUI Attorney Consultation at this online San Diego County DUI Law Center resource center.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Every minute someone is looking for personal help on a DUI case or for valuable Internet links - visit Superb-rated San Diego California DUI Lawyer

Every minute someone is looking for personal help on a DUI case or for valuable Internet links. One Superb-rated San Diego California DUI Attorney devotes his time to providing such a free service for those facing drunk driving issues needing to drive.

That's why problem-free DUI Attorneys step up. It's a complicated situation with both DMV and criminal court.

A well-rounded California DUI Criminal Defense Lawyer featuring 28 years of experience is a decent start.

A DMV Guru with a San Diego DUI defense lawyer called a "Hired Gun." How does the Gun shoot? Find out by starting at Point A: free, online DUI consultation right now for immediate response.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

San Diego California DUI defense lawyer Rick Mueller posts and twits current information designed to help folks avoid checkpoints - check out article

Press Release

October 19,2011

San Diego DUI Attorney Rick Mueller recently published this article on challenging the constitutionality of California drunk driving roadblocks and San Diego DUI checkpoints.

Read here for the entire story.

Check out the legal nuts and bolts of these checkpoints and how they could affect you.

San Diego County DUI Law Center features a regularly updated California DUI checkpoint location site which is free and available for the public. DUI defense lawyer Rick Mueller posts and twits current information designed to help folks avoid checkpoints.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Interesting story on how to avoid getting arrested for a DUI after spending NFL day at a California bar or restaurant

California football fans can cheer for the San Diego Chargers (bye week), San Francisco Forty-Niners, Oakland Raiders and even the (St. Louis) Rams of the National Football League.

Fantasy players like to watch the new NFL Red Zone Channel (found in high definition in San Diego at 1334, Cox cable subscribers). Others get together for drinks at bars and restaurants. So there will be drinking.

California drivers may help themselves with willing volunteers to prevent the DUI Police from making a drunk driving arrest.

California DUI lawyers' recommend the true story from Irish friends across the sea.

A land with a great deal of DUI or drunk driving, upon a major television sports event, the routine Gardai DUI patrol staked out a local pub.

Later, the Garda enforcement team noticed a gentleman leaving the pub so drunk he apparently could barely walk.

The stumbling man circled around the car park for a few minutes, with the DUI Garda drooling as they quietly observed.

What felt like an eternity after the man looked like he was trying to find his keys on 6 or 7 cars, the "drunk" discovered his car. He opened the door and collapsed into it.

The driver paused a few minutes as a other customers quickly left the bar and drove away, ignored by the DUI enforcers.

The observed subject driver started the car, switched the wipers on and off although it was a completely dry night, flicked the emergency indicators on, then off, honked the horn and then switched on the lights with the brights on. Then he turned them off.

The driver moved the vehicle forward a few cm, reversed a little and then remained stationary for a few more minutes as more vehicles drove out of the lot.

The driver pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly down the road, weaving all over the place.

DUI police, having patiently waited all this time, now moved in, put on the flashing lights, immediately pulled the man over and got out a Drunk Driving Breathalyzer test.

To his shock, the DUI Breathalyzer indicated no evidence of the man having consumed alcohol at all!

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

"I seriously doubt it, sir ...." said the lucky man, " ' cause tonight I'm the designated decoy".


For local help, there's this Free Online California DUI Attorney Evaluation .

This list achieves a similar purpose with San Diego DUI Checkpoint locations.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

San Diego California Police Chief blames 11 cop misconduct & DUI problem cases on the "Poor Economy"

San Diego Police Department explained to the City Council what steps they are taking to deal with the numerous, recent San Diego Police Department misconduct and DUI cases.

San Diego City Council members maintained that only 11 out of > 1800 cops were involved in the misconduct cases which are like media magnets.

DUI, drunk driving, domestic violence, rape are some of the complaints.

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne began a seven-step plan to try to prevent future misconduct including wellness screening & ethics training.

Get this. He claims the spate of misconduct is related to the bad economy.

"We've not been through a situation, or circumstance in a long time where we've downsized the police department by such large numbers and reduced the level of supervision," says Lansdowne. "And I've not had so many officers come to me before who are losing their residences, or are going through a divorce, because of the financial problems."

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

A to Z - Ten Reasons not to procced with a California DMV hearing without a DUI Defense Attorney Specialist

California DUI lawyers handling a San Diego DMV hearing approach the action like a mini-DUI trial. Oddball rules, bizarre DMV laws and unique California DMV procedures make it different from defending a DUI case.

A California Driver Safety Officer (DMV Hearing Officer, hereafter "HO") takes the place of a judge. This state employee is really not trained in law yet acts as both prosecutor and judge.

Fundamentally unfair, the HO objects to the driver's evidence, admits DMV's evidence over the driver's lawyers' objection, and ends the hearing much the way it begins.

DUI evidence is presented: usually documents, sometimes live witnesses. The HO begins with the police report, DMV records, alcohol reports and usually marks as Exhibit "1: the critical DUI officer's sworn statement called a "DS367."

Since there are no Fifth Amendment right at the hearing, San Diego DUI attorneys 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 in person.

A San Diego DUI attorneys' defenses at an APS hearing are unique, more so than in criminal court. Persistent San Diego DUI - related proof issues and negative finding are some of the grounds for setting aside the suspension.

In light of the different nature of California DMV hearings and the absence of an independent California judge to offer some protection, you are strongly advised not to try to represent yourself. PD's cannot help.

A California DUI lawyer has just 10 CALENDAR DAYS after the DUI arrest to serve a request or telephone the DMV Driver Safety Office to timely demand a hearing.

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



If you insist on contacting DMV yourself, get the name of the person you speak with. Never discuss the reasons why you are contesting the suspension. Why should you? You're not a lawyer, yet along a California DUI attorney specialist.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Restrictions placed on California's DUI cops' checkpoint vehicle impound practice, as Governor Brown signs important bill Sunday

October 9, 2011 California DUI Press Release

California DUI police have been ordered to discontinue impound cars from sober but unlicensed drivers who are stopped at DUI / license checkpoints under legislation signed today by Gov. Jerry Brown.

If a sober driver is caught at a DUI checkpoint without a valid license, law enforcement officers must release the car to a qualified driver representing the registered owner, DUI lawyers report what AB 353 says.

When a legal driver is not readily available the vehicle is to be released to one later at the impound yard, say attorneys.

A number of Latino lawmakers maintained DUI checkpoints were misused by some California cities to unfairly target illegal immigrants who do not have a driver’s license.

Since California cities can hold cars taken from unlicensed drivers for 30 days, the accumulated impound fees can turn out to be more than the car is worth, resulting in some drivers losing their vehicles.

One DUI Lawyer continues to post updates on these actual locations of San Diego California Drunk Driving checkpoint, in hopes of alerting motorists traveling through the areas.

Friday, October 7, 2011

California DUI Patrol News alert for southern California and San Diego County

California DUI Patrol Lookout Announcement

October 7, 2011

Tonight's drinkers be careful

Orange County Sheriff's Department will be out in a big way searching for drunk drivers in San Clemente, Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano and elsewhere in Southern California.

DUI patrols are looking to find and arrest DUI drivers Friday night, targeting areas which have lots of DUI drivers.

San Diego County will see a DUI checkpoint in Escondido. Click here for locations.

Happy Ending after facing terrifying California DUI prosecuting attorney

This DUI defendant did not do it!

Innocent, says her criminal defense lawyer.

She did not drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

Arresting a nice lady for DUI in California is far from PROVING she's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!

Drunk driving is something that will not be proven in this case. It just did not happen. Believe me. Trust me. Be patient.

The California lawyer prosecuting this DUI is breathing funny, conducting a Star Trek mischaracterization going where no DUI attorney prosecutor has ever gone (nor should one) because of the lack of evidence.

Why waste taxpayer bucks? Why try to impress your boss?

Why not listen to reason?

Come to your senses.

Listen to logic. Know your boundaries. Trust your instincts. Reach deep for the truth.

Twelve gentleman and ladies, what do you say?

"NOT GUILTY"

Thursday, October 6, 2011

San Diego Judge shuts down 9 medical marijuana dispensaries

SAN DIEGO DUI criminal defense lawyers know how some prosecuting lawyers overzealously go after weak targets. Picking on folks with medical disorders is the latest local crime.

San Diego City Attorney's Office shut down a dozen marijuana dispensaries a couple weeks after their complaint via a California judge's orders.

San Diego City Attorney's Office will file more complaints Thursday seeking injunctions against additional marijuana dispensaries which may be in violation of federal and local laws.

Within the city limits of San Diego, marijuana dispensaries are not permitted in any zone. Under federal law, the distribution of marijuana for any purpose in considered illegal drug trafficking. Yet there were many.

U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy sent letters today to the original 12 marijuana dispensaries that the city sued last week, notifying the operators they are in violation of federal law and demanding they shut down.

"We are pleased that Judge (Ronald) Prager has enforced the law today and ordered these nine illegal marijuana dispensaries to be shut down,'' "We have shut down about 40 illegal marijuana dispensaries in the past 12 months. But we have a lot more work to do.'' "Marijuana advocates and their lawyers have been wrong to assume that
federal and local laws could be ignored and that cities like San Diego could be
strong-armed into looking the other way,'' San Diego City Attorney Goldsmith says. "Our job is to enforce the law and we will do it.'' ...at the expense of sick folks needing the drug, apparently.

9 marijuana dispensaries that were ordered to close:

Herbameds on Federal Boulevard
Trichomes Inc. on Park Boulevard
Healing Arts Cooperative on Park Boulevard
All Green Health Cooperative on Fifth Avenue
West Coast Wellness on El Cajon Boulevard
Absolute Collective Inc. on Fourth Avenue
Green Hope Dispensary on El Cajon Boulevard
MediMart on El Cajon Boulevard
Medical Miracle Collective on Park Boulevard

Use of San Diego marijuana can lead to a DUI - drugs charge, lawyers relate.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Without Field Sobriety Testing, a California DUI officer can lack legal cause to arrest even with odor, admission, red eyes and cop's opinion

California DUI attorneys are free to rely on this case to suggest that absent a proper field sobriety test evaluation, a police officer investigating a possible DUI does NOT have legal cause to arrest a person for DUI even if the person:

1. Has a strong odor of alcohol;
2. Admits drinking;
3. Has red, bloodshot and watery eyes;
4. To the officer, who believes based on his training and experience, that the person was under the influence;
5. Was arrested for DUI or drunk driving before and does not think he can do the FST's so the person refuses to take the tests.

San Diego DUI lawyers can cite this case as persuasive.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Click here to read those Guidelines, laws, analysis

San Diego County DUI Law Center has published a new article regarding California's legal principles as they apply to DUI Checkpoints.

Click here to read those Guidelines, laws, analysis. Find out how to suppress otherwise incriminating evidence so that it may not be used against the accused or driver trapped in a roadblock.

When a driver attacks and challenges the validity of a checkpoint, the burden shifts back to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to establish, by affirmative evidence, the legality of the California DUI Checkpoint. [Roelfsema v. DMV (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 871, 880-881]

Explore this lawyer’s free Google-based interactive map of DUI Checkpoints Locations in San Diego and Southern California.

If one's constitutional rights are violated, it's smart to find the best possible attorney.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Folks driving in California need to know that if they are arrested for drunk driving or DUI, here's what to do within ten calendar days using a lawyer

Folks driving in California need to know that if they are arrested for drunk driving or DUI, here's what to do within ten calendar days:

10. To prevent loss of your driver's license or California privileges, your DUI defense lawyer needs to do something within 10 days - contact DMV to request an administrative per se hearing.

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

9. If in San Diego, 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!

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 order of suspension.)

Issues include whether the officer had probable cause to stop or contact you, and whether the San Diego DUI breath or blood test evidence is inadmissible and cannot be relied on.

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) BAC issues, you win! If a refusal, there's 4 issues.

1. All DMV lawyers need to do is successfully knock out just 1 of the DMV issues to preserve your license, avoid DMV reissue fee, and/or not have to file an SR-22.