Archives : DUI

Lindsay Lohan’s Ex-Lover, Samantha Ronson, Arrested For A DUI

In California, you could be charged with a misdemeanor DUI under Vehicle Code Section 23152 or a DUI felony under Vehicle Code Section 23153 if you are driving under the influence and cause an accident and injure another person. For more serious crimes involving the death of another person while driving a vehicle under the influence, you should be charged with vehicular manslaughter under Vehicle Code Sections 191.5 and 192. California has very complex DUI penalties and takes DUI crimes quite seriously. Penalties are enhanced for prior driving convictions, when a minor child under 14 years of age is in the car at the time of the violation, when speeding occurs, when your BAC is over .08% or you refuse to take the chemical test.

Penalties

For a first offense DUI with a BAC over .08%, your driver’s license may be suspended for four months at the time of your arrest or up to one year if you refuse to take a chemical test. If you are under 21 years of age with a BAC of .01% or more, your license will be suspended automatically for one year. For a second offense DUI conviction, you could receive a one year suspension of your license and a two year suspension if you receive to take a chemical test. You could face jail sentences from 96 hours to three years and fines up to $1,600, and also be required to complete a driving under the influence program, and have to pay for the installation of an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) in your vehicle, as well as being required to obtain SR22 (California Proof of Insurance Certificate) car insurance.  A conviction of three or more DUI’s within 10 years and a BAC of .08% or more is considered a felony crime.

Example Case

Actress Lindsay Lohan’s ex-lover, Samantha Ronson, was arrested for a DUI on Monday August 1, 2011, around 10:30 a.m. in Baker, California.  Police officers stopped her for speeding because she was driving 19 miles over the posted speed limit of 70 miles per hour. Police suspected after she was pulled over that she was under the influence. She was given a balance test which revealed indications of intoxication. Police arrested Ronson after she refused a breathalyzer test.  It has been reported that at the police station she tested over the legal limit. Ronson did admit she had been drinking alcohol earlier, and claimed that she had been drinking late the previous evening and that she was on her way home from Las Vegas. She was released on Monday. Lohan has also been in the news the past couple year’s over her drug, alcohol and shoplifting cases.
If you are arrested in California for DUI, you should hire a California criminal defense attorney immediately. The attorney can investigate the police report to make sure the police had cause to stop you, and determine whether they have sufficient evidence to charge you. The attorney can argue that the search and seizure was illegal and try and get the case dismissed. Also, if the police failed to properly give you your Miranda rights, the attorney may be able to argue that your constitutional rights were violated and get the charges dropped. Another defense that the attorney may assert is that you were speeding. A skilled California criminal defense attorney may be able to get you probation or get you into a drug and alcohol counseling and treatment program in lieu of jail time.

Rodney King Booked On Suspicion Of Driving Under The Influence

California driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drug laws (DUI laws) are complex, and you could face stiff fines, penalties and jail time, especially if you cause an accident resulting in the serious injury or death of another person if your BAC is over .08% at the time of your arrest. Penalties are enhanced for second or more offenses, and you could face automatic suspension of your driver’s license for a minimum one year or more. You may also be required to install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) in your car at your own expense and attend a drug or alcohol counseling program.

Penalties

Vehicle Code Sections 23152 and 23153

Under Vehicle Code Section 23152, you could be charged with a misdemeanor DUI or a felony under Vehicle Code Section 23153 if you cause an accident and/or injury to someone.

Penal Code 191.5 and 192

Under Penal Code Sections 191.5 and 192, you could be charged with vehicular manslaughter if you cause the death of another person while driving under the influence. A DUI first offender with a BAC over .08% faces suspension of their driver’s license for four months up to one year if they refuse to take a chemical test. Drivers under the age of 21 with a BAC of .01% face having their license automatically suspended for one year. For a DUI second offense and a BAC over .08%, drivers face a one year suspension or a two year suspension for refusal to take a chemical test.
Jail sentences range from 96 hours to three years and fines up to $1,600. You may be required to complete a driving under the influence counseling program, mandatory installation of an IID in your car, and have to obtain SR22 (California Proof of Insurance Certificate) car insurance.  Keep in mind that penalties are increased if you have a second or more conviction. Three DUI convictions within 10 years with a BAC of .08% are considered a felony in California.

Case

Rodney King, famous for his videotaped beating by Los Angeles police in 1992, which resulted in the trial of the police accused of brutally beating King and the 1992 Los Angeles riots that erupted after the verdict was read acquitting three of the LAPD officers and finding one of the officers guilty of excessive force, was arrested and booked on suspicion of driving under the influence on Tuesday July 12, 2011, in Moreno Valley, California. According to police, King committed multiple traffic violations while driving a 1994 Mitsubishi.  Police were not sure if King was drunk or on drugs at the time of the arrest.

If you are arrested for a DUI offense in California, you should hire a California criminal defense attorney to defend you. The attorney is an expert at California DUI laws and will assert legal defenses to get your charges reduced to a lesser offense such as speeding or negligence if you are charged with vehicular manslaughter, or the attorney may be able to you into a drug or alcohol treatment program to get you a suspended sentence or probation. The attorney will also investigate whether the police failed to observe Miranda warning laws before they questioned you in order to get your case dropped or help you with expungement of a DUI conviction or other driving record charges.

Can You Get A DUI For Using Hand Sanitizer?

A recent study conducted by the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Florida College of Medicine revealed that 8 out of 11 volunteers who had not used alcohol for five days tested positive for alcohol consumption in a urine test after frequently applying Purell hand sanitizer during the day. Purell contains 62% ethyl alcohol. The urine tests recorded levels of ethyl glucuronide of more than 500 nanograms per milliliter in the urine of 8 out of the 11 volunteers indicating that they had consumed alcohol recently. Further tests for another alcohol breakdown product, ethyl sulfate, were not found suggesting that levels of ethyl sulfate could be used as a distinguishing factor in determining whether someone had consumed alcohol or just used a product that contains alcohol. The urine test is a more accurate test than the breathalyzer test, which only measures the amount of alcohol on your breath, and any alcohol dissipates after a few hours.

The research further showed that the absorption of alcohol contained in products such as hand sanitizer, mouth wash, aftershave and cough syrup could result in someone testing positive in a urine test for alcohol use if you used more than 4 oz. a day, which is an ounce more than the size of a bottle allowed on an airplane. Health care workers may at the most risk of testing positive for alcohol consumption in a urine test because they are constantly using products to sanitize their hands throughout their working hours. Other individuals who are required by their employers to take urine tests for alcohol or drug use may want to avoid any products containing alcohol so that they do not test positive for alcohol consumption.

California DUI

If you failed a drug urine alcohol test or breathalyzer test in California because you were either pulled over by the police for suspicion of a DUI or you failed the drug alcohol urine test given by your employer, you should contact a California criminal defense attorney. In order to be convicted of DUI in California, you must have a BAC over .08% at the time of your arrest or a BAC of .01% for driver’s under 21 years of age. You could face jail sentences of 96 hours to three years and fines up to $1,600, as well as completion of  a driving under the influence program, installation of an IID in your vehicle and have to obtain SR22 (California Proof of Insurance Certificate) car insurance.  There are enhanced penalties for second and third or more California DUI convictions. A conviction of three prior DUI’s with a BAC of .08% within the previous 10 years is considered a felony. Even if you are a DUI first offender, your driver’s license could be suspended for four months.
The attorney may be able to establish that your urine test was a false positive because you only used a product containing alcohol such as hand sanitizer and either get your case dismissed or convince your employer that you were not using alcohol or drug so you can keep your job. If evidence does determine that you were consuming an alcohol beverage or an illegal drug while driving a motor vehicle in California, the attorney may be able to get your charges reduced to speeding, get you into a drug or alcohol treatment program with a suspended sentence, probation or get your case dismissed.

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.

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.

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.