Category : Alcohol Crimes

California Man Suspected of Felony DUI

A fatal car collision that occurred near Coachella, California has resulted in the deaths of three children and one adult. On Monday, October 27, 2008 at 1 a.m., a 2009 Cadillac CTS ran a stop sign and ploughed into a 1995 Ford Taurus.

Andres Z. Luna, a 33-year old from Thermal, California, was driving the Cadillac that killed the passengers of the Taurus – an 11-month old, a 7-year old, an 8-year old and a 30-year old woman. None of the victims’ names have yet been released by the authorities.

Following the accident, Luna was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving, as well as on four counts of vehicular manslaughter.

Details of the Accident

The car crash took place at Avenue 62 and Harrison Street in the desert town known as Coachella. After Luna ran a stop sign and crashed into the Taurus, the Taurus started spinning out-of-control, which only ended when the car rammed into a couple of concrete posts and a fire hydrant.

Upon these final impacts, the Taurus split in half. The Cadillac, on the other hand, remained intact following the crash.

While the three kids in the Taurus were thrown from the car during the events of the accident, the woman was still lodged in the wrecked vehicle. All four were already dead when authorities arrived at the scene.

Luna Faces Felony DUI and Vehicular Manslaughter Charges

The California Highway Patrol is still investigating whether or not Luna was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at the time of this tragic auto accident.

Authorities haven’t specified whether Luna submitted to a breathalyzer or whether a blood test was taken to evaluate his sobriety. As a result, Luna’s blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of the crash is still unknown.

If convicted of felony DUI and four counts of vehicular manslaughter, Luna could face up to 40 years in a California State Prison, as each count of “Gross Vehicular Manslaughter with a DUI” carries up to a 10-year sentence.

(Source: CBS2)

Are You Facing DUI or Other Criminal Charges? If so, contact us today to speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney who will provide you with the legal support you need to get your charges reduced, if not dropped altogether. Our experienced criminal law attorneys have been successfully representing individuals for years and are standing by to see how they can help you.

Bus Driver Charged with Felony DUI

Quinton Joey Watts, a 52-year old bus driver, has been charged with a felony DUI following a fatal crash that killed 8 and injured 35 other passengers. The bus, which was heading for a Northern Californian casino, crashed on an isolated road in Williams, California, roughly 60 miles north of Sacramento.

While no evidence of alcohol was found on the bus at the scene of the accident, the California Highway Patrol is investigating whether Watts was using prescription or illicit drugs while driving.

Details of the Accident

About 10 miles away from its destination, the Colusa Casino Resort, the charter bus drifted outside of its lane for a half a mile, after which Watts overcorrected his steering and swerved to try to get back in his lane.

The overcorrection caused the bus to roll and end up in a nearby ditch, right side up. Although no other cars were involved in this accident, the rolling of the bus caused the roof to collapse, all of the windows to be shattered, and the bus to be facing the opposite direction. Additionally, some of the passengers were ejected from the bus during the fatal crash.

Investigation Continues

Robert Kays, a spokesperson for the CHP, has stated that, in addition to investigating the presence of alcohol and narcotics on the bus/in Watts’ system, authorities are also looking into the licensing of the bus itself. Although the police would not divulge the name of the bus charter company, they said that both the Texas license plate on the bus and its registration were invalid.

Currently, victims of the crash are being treated at local area hospitals, including the Colusa Regional Medical Center, the Enloe Medical Center and the UC Davis Medical Center. Some remain in serious to critical condition, which means that Watts can be charged with further counts of manslaughter should any of these victims not survive treatment.

(Source: CNN, KTVU)

Have you been charged with a crime? If so, contact us today to talk to an experienced professional who will provide you with the legal support you need to get your charges reduced, if not dropped altogether.

Breathtaking – Uncertainty and the Breathalyzer

By Vince Imhoff, Esq. & Dan Rhoads

A group of judges in New Hampshire was served several alcoholic drinks as part of an experiment that was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Breathalyzer. One judge was given so many drinks that he became visibly intoxicated. When the judge blew into the Breathalyzer, the machine registered a score of 0.0. After a few more tries, the Breathalyzer gave the same result. Following the demonstration, at least one police jurisdiction in the state ceased using the Breathalyzer in favor of blood tests. (See Margaret Graham Tebo, New Test for DUI Defense, ABA Journal (Feb. 2005).)

Breathalyzer Less Accurate Than Blood Test

The Breathalyzer is less accurate than a blood test. Whereas a blood test actually measures blood alcohol concentration (BAC), the Breathalyzer merely estimates it. In recognition of this fact, South Dakota relies entirely on blood tests.

What the Breathalyzer attempts to measure is the presence of chemicals found in alcohol. But the machine often measures chemicals with molecular structures similar to those found in alcohol. According to Dr. David Hanson, Over 100 compounds can be found in the human breath at any one time, and 70 to 80 percent of them contain [a] methyl group structure and will be incorrectly detected as ethyl alcohol. (See David Hanson, Ph.D., Breath Analyzer Accuracy, at http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html.) As a result, false positives can occur for a plethora of reasons.

Causes of False Positive Breathalyzer Tests

Body chemistry is one factor that can lead to false positives. People with diabetes, acid reflux disease, or some cancers can fail Breathalyzer tests even if their bloodstreams are perfectly free of alcohol. Diabetics, for example, have extraordinarily high levels of acetone, a substance that some breath machines mistake for ethyl alcohol.

Police recognize that regurgitation can render unreliable the results of a Breathalyzer. Thus, most departments require that the arresting officer observe the subject of a breath test for twenty minutes before its administration. Regurgitation includes any instance of fluids or gases that rise through the esophagus.

Breath Test Ruled Inadmissible in Court

In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled inadmissible the results of a breath test where the defendant presented evidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In People v. Bonutti, 817 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. 2004), the defendant had blown a BAC of 0.174 after being stopped and showing outward signs of intoxication. Defendants motion to suppress the Breathalyzer evidence was granted because the court found that the results could have been compromised by a silent, unobservable episode of reflux.

Non-alcoholic substances that people commonly ingest can register on the Breathalyzer. Smokers are often told to wait after consuming a cigarette because chemicals in the smoke can trick the machine. See, e.g., Ind. Admin. Code, tit. 260, r. 1.1-4-8 (providing that the subject of a Breathalyzer test must not smoke within 20 minutes prior to the time a breath sample is taken.) Some non-intoxicating, over-the-counter medications can do the same thing. Even various types of breads can account for BAC levels up to 0.05.

The Breathalyzer is also susceptible to error caused by environmental factors. If a driver has recently pumped gasoline, the alcohol in the fuel can remain on the drivers hands or clothes and can waft into the machine. Compounds that contain the methyl group structure appear in everyday chemicals, such as those found in paints, paint removers, and cleaners. Even electrical interference from cell phones and police radios can disturb the machine.

Women Face Higher Risk of False Positive Breath Tests

Women tend to be at a higher risk of registering a false positive than men. Some breath analysis machines presume a specified hematocrit, which is the percentage of whole blood that is composed of red blood cells. Men naturally have higher hematocrit values than women, but the machines do not adjust according to the sex of the subject. A person with lower hematocrit might have an artificially high BAC reading. Thus, women as a class are in jeopardy of this kind of error. (Hematocrit values can also fall due to blood loss; so, a person tested after being in an accident can register a false positive, adding insult to injury.)

Breathalyzers as Court Evidence

Portable Breathalyzers, which are utilized at traffic stops, are even less reliable than their stationary counterparts. In most jurisdictions, the results from a portable Breathalyzer machine merely provide probable cause to arrest drivers. These machines are susceptible to inaccuracy for reasons as simple as the administering officers improper calibration or carbon monoxide emissions from passing cars. But states are increasingly allowing those results to be used as evidence at trial.

Traditionally, defending a DUI case consisted of attacking the arresting officers probable cause, the officers training in recognizing intoxication, and the polices chain of custody for physical evidence. But as the state relies increasingly on technology to prove its cases, defense attorneys must stay a step ahead in their understanding of the equipment and its shortcomings.

Likewise, a criminal defendant should not concede the accuracy of a Breathalyzer but should hire an attorney who has the time and energy to ensure that dubious test results do not become evidence at trial.

DUI / DWI Cases: Military Justice Court Proceedings and the Injustice of It All

By: Edward Martinovich, Attorney at Law, Michael D, Grahn, Attorney at Law, and Ariella Rosenberg

We see the headline everyday in newspapers around the country: Motor vehicle accident, 2 hurt, 1 killed, driving under the influence suspected. We know the law has changed in the area of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. The consequences of such a criminal conviction are increasing in severity. As serious as the criminal consequences, drunk driving charges have the potential to be even more serious for a member of the United States Armed Forces. Upon criminal conviction, military members are subject to consequences such as loss of security clearance, revocation of driving privileges, and loss of military rank and consequently loss of wages. Given that offenses committed by members of the military fall under a separate code known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it can sometimes be difficult to understand how a DUI under military jurisdiction differs from one prosecuted within the civilian criminal court system. Due to the complexity of this issue, it is especially important that service members facing a DUI / DWI in military court seek the counsel of an attorney experienced both in criminal and military law. At the outset, it is important to understand who is, and who is not, subject to the UCMJ. Members of the Army National Guard are subject to civilian criminal law, even if they are on an active duty base. 10 U.S.C. 802. The only time that a National Guard member is subject to the UCMJ is when they are in federal service. For members of the armed forces who are on duty at the time of offense, the UCMJ applies. Even if a member is on non-duty status at the time of the offense, the UCMJ can still apply, depending on the provisions of state military law.

Members of a reserve component are also subject to the UCMJ when on inactive-duty training, as are:

• Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay, retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force;
• Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial, members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
• Members of the Public Health Service;
• Members of other organizations when assigned to and serving with the armed forces, members of the armed forces awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment;
• Volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces, and;
• In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

Military Court System

10 U.S.C. 802. The military criminal court system, although similar in many ways to the civilian criminal court system, still differs in several important aspects. Unlike civilian courts, the armed forces do not have permanently established trial courts for prosecuting military members. Courts-martial (military criminal trial courts) are convened on an as-needed basis by Convening Authorities, who are military commanders. The commander-in-charge designates the type of court-martial that is to be established (summary, special, or general) and designates when and where the court-martial will meet. 10 U.S.C. 816-821.

The prosecuting attorney in a court-martial proceeding prosecutes in the name of the United States, and, as in civilian courts, the accused has the right to defense counsel. 10 U.S.C. 838. Charged individuals are assigned a military officer for their defense, but reserve the right to choose their own civilian counsel. As in the civilian court system, the accused under a court-martial is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in the case of a trial by jury, there is only the need for a two-thirds vote on the part of the court-martial jury members to find the accused guilty. 10 U.S.C. 852. The civilian criminal court system requires unanimity in the verdicts of its juries, meaning all jurors must agree in the verdict of guilty or not guilty. If there can be no such agreement, then a mis-trial can be declared and a new trial will be ordered by the court.

DUI and Military Personnel

The UCMJ specifically addresses the crime of drunken or reckless driving.

Any person subject to this chapter who (1) operates or physically controls any vehicle, aircraft or vessel in a reckless or wanton manner or while impaired by a substance or (2) operates or is in actual physical control of any vehicle, aircraft, or vessel while drunk or when the alcohol in the persons blood or breath is in excess of the applicable limit under subsection (b), shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. 10 U.S.C. 911.

Under this code, the applicable limit on the alcohol concentration in a persons blood or breath is either the blood alcohol content limit under the law of the state in which the conduct occurred (for operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel in the United States), or, for operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel outside the United States, the maximum blood alcohol content limit is .10 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. For the purposes of this code, the United States includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. 10 U.S.C. 911.

It should be noted, however, that a blood alcohol concentration below the applicable legal limit does not guarantee that there will be no drunk-driving conviction. For military justice purposes, intoxication is the presence in the blood of any amount of alcohol sufficient to sensibly impair the rational exercise of the mental and physical faculties required for vehicle operation. Thus, the results of chemical tests indicating the presence of alcohol in the blood will be considered along with other evidence of intoxication, such as the observations of law enforcement officers and the manner in which the accused was driving.

Military DUI or DWI Sentencing

The sentencing in a military DUI / DWI case also differs from the sentencing process in the civilian criminal court system. For instance, probation is not possible in military cases because a court-martial is a temporary entity created to resolve a particular case. Therefore, it is adjourned (closed and ended) when the sentence is imposed. Consequently, there is no ability to conduct continued supervision (i.e., probation). Military sentences can include confinement, dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank, reduction in pay grade, forfeiture of pay and allowances, fine, and reprimand. There are no sentencing guidelines or minimum sentence requirements for DUI / DWI cases tried in military courts. Thus, one is literally at the mercy of the military court.

Although the military justice system affords individuals the same basic rights as the civilian system, the seriousness of a DUI / DWI charge and the potential of grave military sentences necessitates that a person accused of a DUI / DWI obtain the counsel of an attorney who understands both the state criminal law and military law. Due to the relatively faster pace of military courts, it is imperative to consult an attorney as quickly as possible to insure that proper counsel and advice is received early enough in the process so that an accused can benefit from such counsel.

Criminal DUI/DWI Cases and the Uncivil Law of Vehicle Forfeitures

By: Edward Marinovich, Attorney at Law and Ariella Rosenberg

Clarence Walters of New York City had never been arrested for any offense until his car was seized on March 15, 1999, as the result of a DWI (driving while intoxicated) arrest. His criminal case ended on June 1, 1999, when he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of driving while ability impaired, a non-criminal violation. The defendant paid a fine, performed community service, and completed a Drinking Driver program that rendered him eligible for the restoration of his driver’s license. On June 4, more than two-and-a-half months after the seizure of his vehicle, he was served with a forfeiture complaint on his car. At no time between June 1999 and May 2001, when his vehicle was finally released, was the defendant given an opportunity to challenge the City’s retention of the vehicle.

In another case, in September 1999, the defendant, who, at the age of forty-eight had no arrest record, was stopped on DWI charges in New York, resulting in the seizure of her 1995 Toyota. It took 11 months for a judge to dismiss the forfeiture action and ordered that her car, on which she had continued to make monthly payments of $273, be returned to her.

For another defendant, a first-time DWI arrestee, regaining his car was also a drawn-out ordeal. In connection with a DWI arrest in 1999, the defendants car was seized. After entering a guilty plea, he paid a fine and completed all required community service, as well as a Drinking Driver program. Yet, eight months later, he still had received no hearing on the seizure of his car, which remained in police custody. As a result, the defendant was not given an opportunity to present evidence that a prescription anti-depressant medication he was taking at the time of the arrest caused the breathalyzer test to exaggerate the percentage of alcohol in his bloodstream.

Are Vehicle Forfeitures Constitutional?

What these people all have in common is the violation of their constitutional rights, Including the Fourth Amendment right of citizens to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment right to not be deprived of property “without due process of law.” The Fourth Amendment protection also provides for the requirement, within the search warrant, of “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The seizure of the vehicles of these citizens is, on its face, a classic example of state law enforcement violating the constitutional rights of citizens. So then how is it allowed to occur?

New York Law

New York is one of about 21 other states across the country that allow the police to seize the cars of people suspected of driving while impaired or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. New York Vehicle and Traffic Law defines the crime in the following way: no person shall operate a motor vehicle while the persons ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol; no person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .08 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in the persons blood as shown by chemical analysis of such persons blood, breath, urine or saliva; no person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition, and finally that no person shall operate a motor vehicle while the persons ability to operate such a motor vehicle is impaired by the use of a drug. NY Veh & Traf 1192.

New York Vehicle and Traffic Law contains a section addressing the seizure and redemption of unlawfully operated vehicles, mandating that upon making an arrestfor the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first or second degree committed in his presence, an officer shall remove or arrange for the removal of the vehicle to a garage, automobile pound, or other place of safety where it shall remain impounded, subject to the provisions of this section if: (a) the operator is the registered owner of the vehicle or the vehicle is not properly registered; or (b) proof of financial security is not produced; or (c) where a person other than the operator is the registered owner and, such person or another properly licensed and authorized to possess and operate the vehicle is not present. The law requires that a motor vehicle so impounded shall be in the custody of the local authority and shall not be released unless:(a) The person who redeems it has furnished satisfactory evidence of registration and financial security;(b) Payment has been made for the reasonable costs of removal and storage of the motor vehicle. Additionally, in order to be released, where the motor vehicle was operated by a person who at the time of the offense was the owner thereof, the owner must produce (i) satisfactory evidence that the registered owner or other person seeking to redeem the vehicle has a license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state, and (ii)(A) satisfactory evidence that the criminal action founded upon the charge of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle has been terminated and that any fine imposed as a result of a conviction thereon has been paid. When a vehicle seized and impounded pursuant to this section has been in the custody of the local authority for thirty days, such authorityshall notify the ownerthat if the vehicle is not retrieved pursuant to subdivision two of this section within thirty days from the date the notice is given, it will be forfeited. Importantly, the period of time during which a criminal prosecution is or was pending against the owner for a violation of this section shall be excluded. NY Veh & Traf 511b.

While it is one thing to tow a vehicle from the scene of a DWI arrest (given that the driver is taken away in a police car), the towing becomes unconstitutional due to the sluggish pace of due process. Owners have a right to prove that the seizure was conducted improperly, or to recover their property after paying their debt to society, without waiting months or even years to do so. Additionally, in cases where the person convicted of the DWI is not the owner of the vehicle, and it belongs instead to the drivers spouse, parent, or friend, the court can sometimes hold the vehicle, essentially seizing the property of a person who has committed no crime. This is indeed a blatant violation of the constitutional right to property.

What has gotten more press than the state law concerning seizure at time of arrest is the New York City Police Departments Vehicle Forfeiture Initiative, based on the New York City Administrative Code section (local law) providing for forfeiture of the instruments used to commit a crime. The rationale of the initiative, insofar as it relates to drunken driving, is that since the vehicle helped commit the crime, seizing an impaired drivers vehicle is like taking away a bank robbers gun. NYC Adm. Code 14-140.

However, in Property Clerk v. Burnett, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that due process of law requires that all plaintiffs be afforded a prompt post-seizure, pre-judgment hearingto determine whether the City is likely to succeed on the merits of the forfeiture action and whether means short of retention of the vehicle can satisfy the Citys need to preserve the [seized property]. The Forfeiture Initiative was so harsh that it essentially amounted to double jeopardy, punishing people for their DWI offense legally and then punishing them financially, sometimes auctioning off cars worth upwards of $50,000 for crimes that didnt nearly qualify for such high fines. After numerous actions were brought against this New York City policy, the New York Police Department was forced in 2004 to try and give back about 6,000 cars that had been confiscated since the Forfeiture Initiative went into effect in 1999.

What To Do If Your Car Is Seized

If you have been arrested for a DWI and your car has been seized, it is imperative to first gain the counsel of an attorney licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction of the arrest/seizure and one who is experienced in this highly specialized area of the law. Often in DWI cases, a defendant can enter a plea, leading to reduced charges and fines. However, even a conviction to a reduced charge can negatively impact the civil forfeiture of the vehicle that was driven at the time of the arrest.

Additionally, an experienced attorney can help you know and understand your rights. Once the criminal court proceedings have ended, the owner of the vehicle in question must present proof of ownership, a certificate of disposition from the Court showing that the criminal case is over, and the district attorneys signed, written consent to release the car, stating that it is no longer needed in the criminal case. Whereas in the past the State was able to draw this process out over many months, the owner of property now has a right to an expedited hearing, allowing the presentation of evidence of innocence, or to begin the process of regaining the car after the case has been decided. With an attorney, and the United States Constitution on their side, any person should have their vehicletheir property by lawreturned in a speedy and fair fashion after due process of law has been given.

DUI – SB 1694: A Paper Tiger?

By: Vince Imhoff, Esq. & Mike Riddell

Meet John, a 25 year-old construction worker Southern California in late 1995. After work one Friday afternoon, John heads to a local bar to drink a few beers with his co-workers. Four beers later, John walks down the street to a restaurant to meet his wife for dinner. The two have a couple glasses of red wine before heading to a nearby theater for a movie. After the movie and on their way home, John is pulled over for going 5mph over the speed limit. The police officer detects a hint of odor of the wine John had over dinner a couple hours earlier. In the officers mind, this questionable detection is enough to establish a reasonable cause to suspect John of driving while under the influence of alcohol, so he orders John to take a breathalyzer test. John, whom had seven drinks in the last four hours, submits to the test because a refusal to submit would result in an automatic suspension of his license under current California law. The officer finds that Johns Blood-Alcohol Content (BAC) is .085 .005 over the legal limit – and John is convicted under California Vehicle Code 23152. As a result, John loses his license for six months, is fined a few hundred dollars, and spends two days in jail.

Almost a decade later, it is now early 2005 and John is the foreman of the construction company. Again it is a Friday and John joins his friends for a few drinks after work, as he does every week. He meets his wife for dinner before seeing a movie. The same thing happens: an officer suspects that John had been drinking, John is pulled over, and again fails the breathalyzer test by a mere fraction. Because of recently passed Senate Bill 1694, requiring that drunk driving convictions remain on criminal records for an additional three years, a total of ten years, John is found guilty of his second drunk driving offense. Because he is a repeat offender, his license will automatically be suspended for two years, he pays a few hundred dollar fine again, and would probably spend a couple months in jail.

Deterring People from Driving Drunk in California

If the goal of California is to deter people from driving while under the influence, then the new three-year addition serves merely as a paper tiger, something that appears powerful but is actually powerless and ineffective. A three-year addition is simply not powerful enough to deter anyone who has not already been deterred by the previous seven-year condition. Instead, California should make the immediate punishment namely, fines and jail-time more harsh.

Drunk Driving Conviction

California Vehicle Code 23152 mandates that it is a misdemeanor for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.” When this behavior results in serious bodily harm, the offense becomes a felony under California Vehicle Code 23153.

Punishment under 23152 varies greatly depending on the circumstances. Generally, a first offense will result in a license suspension, minimal jail-time (up to six months, but generally much less), and a minimal fine (from $390 to $1,000). Because of the vast disparity in possible sentences, it is imperative for the driver to seek expert legal assistance immediately following the arrest. With expert legal help, there is a much better chance to get the minimum sentencing requirements.

Second DUI Conviction

A second conviction within the new ten year window carries a significantly higher degree of punishment. The second-time offenders license is automatically suspended for two years, and the jail time could be as long as one year. Again, with immediate legal assistance, the maximum sentences can be avoided.

Ideally, the goal of the California legislature is to get more aggressive in the prosecution of a crime responsible for 1,445 deaths in the state in 2003. Of the roughly 4,000 traffic fatalities in 2002, more than 40% were alcohol-related. Within the aforementioned Senate Bill 1694, the California legislature cites four main purposes behind replacing the former seven-year condition with a ten-year condition:

• DUI continues to be a significant threat to the public health and safety.
• Despite significant progress and declining rates of DUI in the last two decades, fatalities associated with this conduct have increased for the past several years.
• Two hundred thirty-six more people died from DUI conduct in 2001 than did in 1998.
• Nearly 180,000 people were arrested for DUI offenses in 2001, including 25 percent of whom were repeat offenders.

Despite citing these four reasons, the legislature does not address how the three-year addition will resolve any of these issues. Ultimately, the reason behind the passage of SB 1694 could be as simple as California legislators desire to tell their constituents that they passed heavy measures to curb drunk driving. And, while California should definitely do everything it can to prevent people from driving while under the influence, the new ten-year condition is not the best means to reach that end.

Harsher DUI Penalties Needed in California

If California is indeed serious about being more strict on prosecuting DUIs, it would make the immediate penalties more harsh. Instead of lengthening the time the crime is on ones record, California should increase the maximum fine or lengthen the license suspension period. Thinking logically, a potential drunk driver would be more fearful of a heavier fine or sentence than he would be of the possible implications ten years in the future.

John, the hypothetical construction worker, was not deterred sufficiently enough by his first conviction. Attempting to force would-be drunk drivers to look ten years into the future simply is not powerful enough to deter drunk driving. Instead of passing paper tiger bills that ultimately will not serve a great benefit on society, California should get serious in its deterrence of drunk driving.