Success Stories
- California: Client charged with Disorderly Conduct and Obstruction of justice after being beaten by police – CASE DISMISSED
- Indiana: Client charged with felony theft charge for allegedly stealing from a department store – CHARGES DROPPED
- Virginia: Client charged with being an accessory to shoplifting on a US military base – CHARGES DISMISSED
- Florida: 14 year-old client accused of molesting his 4 year-old adopted sister – CHARGES DISMISSED
FIRM ARTICLES
March 21, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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:
(a) DUI continues to be a significant threat to the public health and safety. (b) 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. (c) Two hundred thirty-six more people died from DUI conduct in 2001 than did in 1998. (d) 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.
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.