Southern California DUI Defense Attorney Blog

According to a High Desert's Daily Press news article, after midnight on January 17, 2013 presumed driver Tony Martinez Jr. was traveling in an easterly direction on Chestnut Street in Hesperia, CA. Reports suggest that Martinez was traveling at a high rate of speed at the time the vehicle, without stopping, proceeded through the intersection at Hesperia Road busting through a guardrail before rolling over and coming to a rest on railroad tracks. San Bernardino County Sheriff Sgt. Doug Hubbard suggested the vehicle was traveling in excess of 50 miles per hour to have traveled enough distance to nearly jump the wash. BNSF Railroad was forced to stop all railroad traffic during the initial accident investigation, which took approximately 4 hours.

As a result of the collision, passenger, Joevanni Vega was ejected from the 2009 Honda Civic and was pronounced dead at the scene. Presumed driver Tony Martinez, who was found still restrained by his seat belt in the vehicle suffered major head trauma as a result of the accident and was airlifted to a local area hospital. Shortly after the accident, Martinez Jr., at Antelope Valley Hospital was said to be in stable condition. Attorney David A. Welch who has a San Bernardino based DUI defense practice had worked closely with Victorville Prosecutors and Superior Court Judges assigned to the high deserts court in seeking resolutions to similar cases.

Heading the investigation of the accident is the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Major Accident Investigation Team. Based on preliminary results, no other vehicles were said to be involved in the accident and Alcohol is believed to have plaid a roll in the crash, however, the investigation is still ongoing.

Although the manner in which this event is being presented by this lawyer may seem less conclusive than that written by the staff writer of the Daily Press, the existence of a top DUI defense attorney should be to question all of the evidence, even the obvious. Take for instance that statement that Mr. Martinez was found seat-belted in the vehicle, the article did not say in which seat, whether the seat-belt buckle was securely attached to its counter part. Is it in fact possible that Mr. Martinez could have been tossed about the vehicle during the time it was in the process of rolling which resulted in him becoming tangled in a seat-belt not originally his. It is important that an attorney who defends an individual in a fatality driving under the influence case draws or allows to be drawn a conclusion fatal to his clients case.

Further, a Sheriff's press release later suggested that alcohol may have played a part in the accident. Again, a presumption that may seem reasonable to Sheriff but can not be accepted as a forgone conclusion by any attorney who may represent Mr. Martinez. BAC or blood alcohol concentrations in someone's blood is a matter to be determined by science and not a Sheriff's Major Accident Investigation Team. Because the consumption of alcohol is not a constant in consideration of the variance in alcohol strength between a beer, a glass of wine or a shot of Bacardi 151 and the manner and speed for which they were consumed, we can not automatically concluded one's blood alcohol lever without exact scientific calculation. Factors which must be included in calculations are time drinking began, time drinking stopped, was what drank and when was it drank. Food also plays an important roll as it will effect the absorption. We know from the report that Martinez was found in the vehicle. How much time was exhausted extracting him from the vehicle. This may just have been enough time to have rendered a blood alcohol level below the state limit of .08%.

Mr. Welch has represented many clients in similar DUI cases and has successfully used the exact arguments presented in this article to assist other driving accused of DUI to successfully reduce there cases. We would be please to set up an appointment with you so that Attorney David A. Welch may effectively discuss your case directly with you.

There are many misconceptions regarding exactly what the laws are regarding Driving Under the Influence in the State of California. While most people are aware of the .08% "legal limit" of alcohol while driving, there are a number of other levels which can affect individuals. In addition, many would be surprised that they can be charged with DUI even if their alcohol level is below the .08% threshold. As a DUI defense attorney who has dealt with thousands of DUI cases, I have experience in how prosecutors and the DMV approach and charge individuals with DUI.

In the State of California, the Vehicle Code outlines what constitutes a violation of the law. It is also important to note that criminal court prosecution may significantly differ from DMV actions with each of the categories I've listed below.

Vehicle Code Section 23152(b): .08%
In the State of California it is a violation of this code section for any driver to drive with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or above. This of course is the standard that most people refer to. What happens when an individual is a .07% or even .06%? Most people I speak with are shocked when I tell them that it is common for prosecutors to charge people with Driving Under the Influence even when they are below this "legal limit".

Driving Under the Age of 21: 0.01%
As most individuals understand, t is a crime for anyone under the age of 21 to drive with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.01% or above. The Department of Motor Vehicles essentially has a "zero tolerance" position regarding those under the age of 21 alleged to have driven with even trace amounts of alcohol. I have represented individuals with .01 to .07% and the DMV treats these cases very seriously. If the DMV finds against someone under 21 years of age, their driving privileged will be suspended for one year. In addition, if an individual was under the age of 18, the individual will be charged with a Juvenile Offense. There are very specific defenses and very positive settlement options sometimes available in this situation.

Vehicle Code Section 23140: Driving Under the Age of 21: 0.05%
While the DMV concerns itself with suspension of an individual's driving privilege, if someone under the age of 21 is driving with a .05% or above, they may be charged with a violation of Vehicle Code Section 23140, an infraction. An infraction, not a crime, can subject an individual to fines and a conviction may result in DMV points and license interruption.

Driving Under the Influence while on Probation: .01%
If an individual is on probation for a prior violation of Vehicle Code Section 23152, it is unlawful to drive with any amount of alcohol in their system. Therefore, 0.01% or above is the limit for those on probation. People ask me, well can't I have a beer or glass of wine with dinner? The answer is an emphatic no. The DMV is generally the harshest in enforcing this limit. If the DMV finds against an individual alleged to have .01% or greater while on DUI probation, one additional year of license suspension can be imposed in addition to the standard one year suspension. Regarding the criminal courts, enforcement of DUI probation issues vary. While it is somewhat uncommon for an individual with, for example, a .02% alcohol level to be charged with a probation violation, it is common for prosecutors and courts to treat repeat offenders on probation harshly.

Commercial Drivers: 0.04%
For Commercial Drivers, or those with "Class A" Drivers Licenses, it is unlawful to drive with 0.04% or above. While the courts generally will concern themselves with the .08% or above limit, severe DMV consequences can result with someone with a commercial license, whether or not they are driving a commercial vehicle at the time of the arrest. On a first time DUI, a commercial license is suspended for one year. A second DUI offense may result in a lifetime ban from operating a commercial vehicle

The Law Office of David A. Welch has over 17 years of experience defending drivers who have been accused of driving under the influence and will be happy to review and assess your particular case.

La Mesa Resident Drendolyn Sims has profoundly effected the method for which California's law enforcement agencies will conduct a criminal investigation, which may also effect DUI investigations.

Despite the following fact: Drendolyn Sims vs. T he City of La Mesa is a civil, not a criminal matter and the then "alleged" suspect is not Drendolyn Sims, the legal and constitutional issue is whether the officer involved had the legal right to enter the Sims property without a warrant.

The circumstances surrounding the Ninth Circuit Court's decision are follows: In or around 2008 Officer Mike Stanton, a peace officer employed by the La Mesa Police Department witnessed Nicholas Patrick crossing Thorn Street. Officer Stanton shouted out to Patrick to stop but Patrick disregarded Stanton's command proceeded across the street and entered the property of Drendolyn Sims. A six-foot tall wooden fence was closed behind Patrick after he entered the front yard of the property.

Officer Stanton then approached the gate for which Patrick had entered and without any warning, kicked the gate it. Officer Stanton's blow caused the hinges of the gate to become detach from the fence. The detached gate then struck Sims rendering her unconscious, and causing a shoulder injury. Ultimately Sims would require surgery to repair damages.

Sims sued The City of La Mesa and Officer Stanton for damages totaling $500,000. Sims claimed that search of her property was unlawful and a violation her constitutional rights protecting her from unlawful searches by our government.

A lower federal court caused the case to be thrown out, presumably finding in favor of Officer Stanton's decision to enter the Sims property. However, on December 3, 2012 the United States Ninth Circuit Appellate Court reversed the findings of the lower court and held the Officer Stanton did not act within the scope of the United States Constitution, specifically the Forth Amendment which protects citizens against unlawful search of our property.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the decision of the three judge panel. In his findings, Reinhardt stating the power to conduct a warrant-less search of a private residence does not apply if police are chasing someone guilty of no more than a low-level misdemeanor. The court further explained, that an officer "May Not" pursue a suspect onto private property if the alleged crime to have been committed amounts to nothing more than a simple misdemeanor. Alternatively The officer would have to ask permission to enter the property. If not granted, the officer would be required to wait for a search warrant.

For the sake of discussion, could this mean that an officer who has pursued a DUI suspect to his residence where the suspect has exited the vehicle and entered his residence would be required to obtain a search warrant if the suspect where not to grant permission to enter.

Since a DUI can easily be defined as a simple misdemeanor, it is certain, at least initially that an attorney for a DUI defendant should utilize this case as a plausible defense strategy. If successful, defense would invalidate a search of a private residence, which resulted in the arrest of the defendant who was found within the searched private residence. However, under existing law, the prosecution would argue that a warrant is not required in situations where either consent to search the property is granted, or where emergency situations exist which would likely cause the loss of evidence. Since a blood alcohol level is anything but constant, any delay caused by waiting for a warrant could and likely would result in the lowering of the defendant's blood alcohol level. Conversely, defense would argue that the officer had not evidence supporting intoxication prior to making contact with the defendant and therefore can not argue a loss of evidence which may or may have not existed.

Attorney David A. Welch is highly experienced in DUI Defense in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego Courts. In addition to his analytical and negotiation skills, Attorney David A. Welch stays well informed as to new laws which could effect the outcome of any one of his cases.

It is important for all defendants in a California DUI cases to have a basic understanding of the process in determining a general defense strategy after being arrested and charged with DUI (Driving Under the Influence) in Southern California.

There are two separate and distinct processes in nearly every DUI case: the DMV and the Criminal Court.

Regarding the DMV, it is critical that a hearing be requested within 10 days of your arrest. At stake is the issue of whether your drivers license will be suspended. The DMV's actions are independent of the court process and for most people, an extremely important issue. Since most DMV hearings are won based on errors or problems with documentation, it is important that an experienced DUI Defense Attorney who can identify and capitalize on such errors represents you at this hearing. Simply put, in these hearings the DMV will put on their case and then wait for the Attorney to raise effective challenges to the department's case.

This hearing is win or lose, with no opportunity for negotiation. In a victory there will be no interruption of one's driving privilege. On the other hand in a DMV loss, you can lose your license for four months, but can obtain a restricted license after 30 days. A restricted license will allow you to drive to, from and in the course of employment as well as to and from alcohol classes and court ordered programs.

The Criminal Courts involve a very different process. The goal in all cases is to avoid prosecution. Although somewhat rare, there are cases where insufficient evidence causes the case to never be issued. If the case is issued, the goal then is to have the case either dismissed or substantially reduced. Unlike the DMV, the court process involves negotiations with the prosecuting agency such as the City Attorney or District Attorney. Surprisingly, some prosecutors are willing to work towards a reasonable resolution where others are inflexible.

A common question among our client's is what type of sentences the courts issue if one is convicted of DUI? Although some specifics vary, there are common elements To DUI sentences. Typically a sentence is 3 to 5 years of informal probation, a fine and alcohol classes. Depending on the court or whether your matter involves a high blood alcohol or other aggravating factors, the court can impose work service or other conditions. Frankly it is very uncommon for courts to sentence individuals to jail in first time DUI matters.

The most important consequence can simply be the conviction itself for DUI. Should negotiations with prosecutors not yield the results you want, you have the option of proceeding towards a jury trial. That right is yours no one can compel you or prevent you from going to trial. The decision is entirely yours.

Due to the complexities involving both the DMV as well as the Criminal Court procedures, it is important to be represented by an experienced and qualified Southern California DUI Defense Attorney.

There has been quite a bit of speculation and questions raised regarding the effect of California's inmate-reducing "public safety realignment" program initiated this year by California Governor Jerry Brown.

In essence, California prisons are hopelessly overcrowded and inmate populations exceeding prison housing limits. In some prisons, inmates are crammed into cells designed for fewer inmates and in others, gymnasiums have closed and have been turned into housing units. The Supreme Court has ordered that California address this crisis, and therefore state laws AB 109 and AB 117 were recently enacted.

The effect is that non-violent criminal offenders in state prisons would be transferred to local county jails to alleviate the overcrowding problem. The problem for county jails, however, is that they are also extremely overcrowded. Prosecutors such as L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley have expressed concerns about the realignment, stating that crime rates will increase substantially as prisoners are released into society.

CBS Los Angeles has reported that prior to its implementation, LA County officials "predict doom" and increased crime in the LA area. Well, to date the crime rate arguably has remained unchanged.

An interesting result of this bill, however, has been the benefit to those arrested in LA and other Southern California counties for DUI, some Theft Crimes, Driving on a Suspended License and other non-violent misdemeanor crimes.

As a Southern California Criminal Defense Attorney, I have seen my clients serve a very small fraction of the jail time imposed on them by the court. In one case, an individual was sentenced to the maximum 365 days for a misdemeanor: he was released after about 12 days. Another individual was sentenced to serve 220 days in custody: he was released after 5 days and was able to perform public work for an additional 15 days to completely satisfy the custody order. With individuals with very short custody orders, it is not uncommon for them to be booked and released. It has become so predictable that I have arranged for my custody bound clients to convert their fines to custody. By employing this strategy, My clients have still been released either immediately or after a very short period of time but with no fines to pay when release.

Of course there are no guarantees as to whether or not individuals will be released early, since it is entirely the decision of the Sheriff having control over the jail facility. It is a reality, however, that due to the inmate realignment program, all jail and prison facilities remain overcrowded. For non-violent offenders, this appears to be a positive in terms of the amount of jail time that will be ultimately served.

Link: As Prisoner Exchange Begins, LA County Officials Predict Doom

The Riverside Press-Enterprise reports that on March 11, 2012, an 18-year-old Riverside man was killed after the driver of the car he was riding in crashed into a parked car on a residential street. The driver, 18-year-old Jesus Gamez was driving nearly 100 miles per hour OVER the posted 25 mph speed limit and was not only under the influence, but was also racing another vehicle in a 1994 Ford Mustang. The DUI driver lost control of the Mustang and slammed into a parked vehicle. The Mustang was reported as being so mangled that firefighters had to cut the victims out of the vehicle.

Both Gamez, the driver as well as the victim, Ruben Terriquez, were transported to Riverside Community Hospital, where Terriquez died from his injuries.

Gamez was booked into Robert Presley Detention Center for investigation of a number of felony charges, which included vehicular manslaughter. It is likely that he will be charged with numerous enhancements, including a speed enhancement as well as being involved in illicit speed racing. The prosecution, especially in Riverside Court, will aggressively pursue the criminal charges against Gamez especially given the outrageous speed being alleged.

All of the above was reported based on law enforcement estimates and other reports and the arrest is based on these law enforcement allegations. A case involving injury alone can be charged as Vehicle Code Section 23153, Driving Under the Influence causing injury. If the injuries are severe, an "Great Bodily Injury" enhancement can be alleged. There are cases where injury may be reported by law enforcement, but later what appeared to be an injury is not substantiated by medical reports. A qualified Southern California DUI Defense Attorney will be able to thoroughly investigate the actual extent of injuries and negotiate a reduction of charges where appropriate.

In this reported DUI manslaughter case, however, it is certain that both law enforcement as well as the Riverside DA will expend significant resources both investigating as well as prosecuting the defendant.

A Pitchess Motion is a common pre-trial defense strategy used by many experienced DUI
defense attorneys. The desired effect of this motion is an order granting defense access to the
officer's personnel file. On the surface, the motion intended to find any history of abuse of
power, misconduct and other disciplinary actions that have been taken against an officer. If
such information exists, the defense will have "dirt" about the officer that will help the
defense to bring to question the weight that should be given to the officers testimony the jury.

The origin of the Pitchess motion starts with a prior California Supreme Court case, titled Pitchess v. Superior Court. So common and essential is this motion that the Pitchess process has been made part of California's Evidence Code. However, restricting defense counsel from freely foraging through the officer's file is the requirement that the information released from the file must be considered relevant the defense's case. Such items may include a history of racial bias, false arrest, falsifying evidence, harassment and discrimination or even the officer's own criminal conduct.

In a DUI case, information the defense hopes to discover would be allegations of previously filed false police reports by the arresting officer, improperly obtaining evidence, conducting himself in a manner so threatening that it has cause the defendant to feel compelled by force to cooperating with the officer's voluntary investigation. One very recent example where a Pitchess Motion would most definitely be in order is a case currently being uncovered in Northern California. This case deals with allegation that officers have falsified calibration records for a series of Alco Sensor breath testing devices. This information placed before a jury would not only lead to discrediting the officers testimony of a defendants guilt but may also lead to the exclusion of the results from the testing equipment which shows the defendant to be above a legal alcohol limit.

A Judge as part of the Pitchess Motion process will thoroughly review the relativity of the documents you seek access, while giving consideration to the rights of the officer to maintain his privacy will release what he determines to be the pertinent documents relative to your case. This process is not an easy one to succeed at and as such will typically requires an experienced criminal defense attorney to lead the way.

To be successful in the Pitchess process, an experienced criminal defense attorney will likely be necessary to maneuver through the minefield that consists of the prosecuting attorney, an attorney representing the officer and the judge.

Continue reading "DUI Trial Strategy - Running a Pitchess Motion " »

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the accuracy of thousands of DUI breath tests is being questioned in Northern California. Defense Attorney Jeff Adachi stated that the issue could affect as many as 1,000 convictions.

It is reported that both the police as well as the District Attorney's office admitted that there was a problem with "negligence" in maintaining maintenance logs. The report is that for years, the police have been falsely reporting their maintenance and calibration logs. The Alco-Sensor IV breath test device, used to test the breath alcohol levels for individuals suspected of Driving Under the Influence, is the subject of this report.

Southern California's DUI Defense Attorneys must give this issue serious consideration because the testing devices used in this incident of police misconduct by falsification of evidence are the same devices used you our community. Further the overall attitude of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors throughout Southern California tends to mirror that of the agencies in this incident.

A defense attorney, in reviewing previous years, noticed that the breath test instrument was reporting nearly perfect results on every "control test", which would be mathematically impossible.

After the allegation that law enforcement was forging breath testing accuracy check logs, it was also reported that the alcohol/gas mixture that is used in this type of control testing (which was supposed to maintain a constant value of .082) had expired in September 2010! The manufacturer of the Alco-Sensor IV devices says that police should conduct accuracy checks every 10 days, or after 150 tests! While the investigation continues, all of the devices were pulled from normal operation.
The chief defense attorney for appointed counsel indicated that as many as 500 to 1000 individuals could have been wrongfully convicted. This is a classic case of the "end justifies the means" attitude of some individuals. Law Enforcement plays a key and courageous part in protecting the public and our laws. But that role does not place them above the law. Some may have the position "they were probably guilty anyway" which flies directly in the face of the protections our laws and Constitution give each citizen, specifically those accused of committing crimes.
We are reminded of the principles on which our legal system was founded: "Better that ten guilty persons escape prosecution than one innocent person suffer", which was initiated by English jurist William Blackstone.
It is simple to classify individuals as conviction statistics and allow governmental agencies to steamroll over citizens with an attitude of "who cares if some innocents get caught up in our meat-grinder". Regardless of how media may want to portray anyone accused of DUI, the fact is that we are dealing with human lives. Those employed by our citizens to prosecute and enforce laws should be held to the highest standards. Should those in law enforcement fail in meeting these standards, as in the Northern California cases, then naturally they should not be allowed to secure convictions.

It is important that anyone accused of DUI retained a qualified and experienced Southern California DUI Attorney to assist them in their defense.

LINK http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/05/BAT51NGCFC.DTL

The San Diego Union Tribune reports that an Imperial Beach man arrested on suspicion of drunken driving three times in five days pleaded not guilty to DUI charges in San Diego Court. This individual was charged with violations of California Vehicle Code Sections 23152(a) (driving under the influence) and 23152(b) (driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% or above) plus having two prior convictions. Unusual is that the prior convictions occurred within the past five days!

According to authorities, the suspect was arrested after Sheriff's deputies responded to a report of a drunken driver on Seacoast Drive in Imperial Beach. Interestingly, as with many individuals arrested, officers did not pull him over in a traffic stop. Instead, the officers reported that the defendant parked his vehicle and entered a bar on Palm Avenue, according to sheriff's Sgt. Ted Greenwald. After checking his background, the officers discovered that he had already been arrested for the same reason twice the prior week, he said.

Regarding his prior arrests, the defendant was arrested on suspicion of DUI by the San Diego Police Department on January 17, 2012 and by California Highway Patrol officers on January 19th, Sgt. Greenwald said. The Defendant was arraigned in court on the Imperial Beach case and was ordered held on $100,000 bail.

It was reported that the defendant's attorney stated that the defendant had been sober for 2 1/2 years before the series of DUI arrests. While the report from the article, obviously based on information provided by law enforcement implies that the defendant is guilty, the attorney indicated that the initial results from the January 17th DUI arrest showed the defendant with a .05 or .06 percent blood-alcohol level and they were still waiting for results of the blood test.

In the second incident two days later, the defendant's blood-alcohol level was reported as being .18%. The defendant's blood-alcohol level was reported as being .14% following the arrest in Imperial Beach, according to the prosecutor
The court in San Diego set bail at $40,000 in the downtown case and scheduled a jury trial for February 22, 2012.

It is clear from this report that the defendant has issues that require attention. It is my opinion that one should never drive with any amount of alcohol in his/her system. Alcohol issues aside, law enforcement will make arrests and deprive arrestees of their freedom and let courts or juries decide. Naturally defendants are terrified of the possible penalties and may make rash decisions regarding their cases. Looking at these cases, two of the three DUI arrests appear to have defenses. The first has a blood alcohol level well below the legal limit, and in the third, the defendant was in a bar when arrested. Did he consume alcohol in the bar? Could he have been under the legal limit at the time he drove? These are issues that require the expertise of an experienced Southern California DUI Defense Attorney.

Naturally no one advocates driving under the influence. At the same time, the beauty of our legal system is that individuals arrested enjoy the presumption of innocence.

Reference
Man has Three DUI Arrests in 5 Days

Continue reading "San Diego Man is Arrested for Third DUI in Five Days " »

On January 1, 2012 a new law went into effect in California that prohibits police from impounding vehicles at sobriety checkpoints if the driver's only offense is not having a license. Prior to this law's passage, law enforcement's towing of vehicles hit undocumented and unlicensed immigrants the hardest. The drivers were either in violation of Vehicle Code Section 12500 (essentially driving without a valid California license) or Vehicle Code Section 14601 (driving on a suspended license).

Advocates of the law are extremely happy since their position is that tow truck companies exploited the old towing rule, particularly at locations in Los Angeles with significant immigrant populations. The sponsor of the new law, State Assemblyman Gil Cedillo indicated that the old law allowed police to impound vehicles for up to 30 days, resulting in fees that could easily top $1,000. The recent scandal involving the City of Bell revealed a corrupt system which exploited those whose vehicles were towed, netting the city and tow operators huge fees.

An investigation conducted by UC Berkeley determined that that unlicensed drivers impounds brought in over $40 million in revenue from fees and auctions for local governments and towing companies in 2009 alone. For every arrest for driving while intoxicated at the sobriety checkpoints, there were as many as 60 cars seized from unlicensed drivers.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said the changes in the law are an issue of fairness. "There is a vast difference between someone driving without a license because they cannot legally be issued one and someone driving after having their license revoked," Beck said.

Others in law enforcement, however, have expressed disappointment in the law, as it restricts their ability to impound vehicles of those without valid licenses. Immigration proponents have long asserted that current laws prevent undocumented immigrants from obtaining licenses, thereby creating a 'Catch-22', where the undocumented are unfairly targeted.

Regardless of the new law's effect on unlicensed drivers, it is highly likely that there will be little effect on the continuing practice of police utilizing Sobriety Checkpoints to crack down on suspected DUI drivers. Sobriety Checkpoints are set up by law enforcement to screen drivers for violations of California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a), "Driving Under the Influence". These checkpoints must adhere to standards set forth in the Ingersoll v. Palmer case, in which the court mentioned standards law enforcement must adhere to for a checkpoint to be valid.

Continue reading "Unlicensed California Drivers Will No Longer Get Their Cars Towed at DUI Checkpoints" »

According to Southern California DUI Defense Attorney David A. Welch, California already has some of the toughest DUI laws in the country. Now with the introduction and passing of Assembly Bill 1601, The laws have become even tougher for third-time DUI offenders. Assembly Bill 1601, sponsored by Assemblyman Jerry Hill, A Democrat from San Mateo, has been signed into law providing new penalties for individuals convicted of a third-time DUI offense within ten years in California. Assembly Bill 1601 scheduled to takes effect on January 1, 2012.

Under this new law, California judges will now have the option of revoking a convicted third time DUI offender's drivers license for a period of up to 10 years! The basic DUI charges are Vehicle Code Sections 23152 (a) "Driving Under the Influence" and 23152 (b) "Driving with an alcohol level of .08% or above". Enhancements are added under Vehicle Code Section 23550.5 if that person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and the offense occurred within 10 years of a prior DUI conviction.

For many years, the penalty for having a 3rd DUI was a three-year license suspension and designation as a "Habitual Traffic Offender". An option to obtain a restricted license became effective July 1, 2010 was available after suffering a 6 month suspension so long as an Ignition Interlock Device was installed.

Prompted by many high-profile cases in California featuring repeat DUI offenders, Assemblyman Hill estimates it will take 10,000 repeat offenders off the road.

While no one is a proponent of Driving Under the Influence, the logical effect of this law would be to deny those convicted of their livelihoods. In most DUI cases, the issue of an individual's driving privilege is most important. Some Attorneys feel that the effect of this law will result in more trials at taxpayer expense as repeat offenders fight to avoid the penalty. There would be no incentive to remain law abiding, and many of those convicted will be forced to drive without valid licenses to maintain employment. Other groups have criticized AB1601, indicating that the law is not "tough enough" and demand more severe penalties for repeat offenders.

Undoubtedly the penalties for ALL DUI offenses, especially third-time DUI offenses in California will be increasingly more severe. It is important to seek the counsel of a qualified Southern California DUI Defense Attorney if accused of any DUI offense.

The Law Offices of David A. Welch has been handling Southern California DUI matters for individuals for more than 16 years in and around Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino Counties.

Related Sources:

Assembly Bill 1601

CVC 23152 (a) - Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol or their Combines Influence and CVC

CVC 23152 (b) - Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08% or Greater

CVC 23153 - Driving Under the Influence of Drugs or Alcohol Causing Injury

CVC 23550.5 - Prior DUI Convictions within Ten Years

Of significant interest to Southern California DUI Defense Attorney David A. Welch is the report released in December 2011 by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation. The study concluded that the number of drunken-driving arrests for women has grown significantly over the past years. The study specifically finds that over the past decade, there has been a 36% increase in the amount of women arrested for Driving Under the Influence.

Not surprisingly, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation study was triggered by the horrific 2009 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) I accident by mother Diane Schuler. Schuler drover her minivan down the wrong side of a New York highway, causing a crash that killed herself, her daughter, her three nieces and three men in the opposing car. Toxicology reports indicated that Schuler was drunk and high.

Stephen Bloch, a researcher from AAA, says that DUI cases for women between the ages of 21 to 24 have doubled in the last 10 years. In San Diego County, the fatal incidents involving women with ages 18-24 increased by 124%, from 49 accidents to 110.

Bloch noted that men's involvement with drunken driving is not increasing while women's statistics have risen significantly. He believes that among the factors that have affected this number are the number for women taking the wheel and logging more miles.

Bloch also blames the intense marketing of alcohol to females in the rise of female DUI related accidents. He said that alcoholic beverages have become more appealing to the female demographic with the introduction of sweeter drinks.

Arguably, this unlikely increase may have in part been caused by the growing number of young female celebrities being arrested because of DUI. These high profile DUI arrests include, Lindsay Lohan , Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton. The reported details of the Southern California DUI Arrests are as follows:

Lindsay Lohan was first arrested for DUI in May 2007 following a minor car accident. Only two months later, she was taken into custody for suspicion of drunk driving and cocaine possession.

Following her first DUI, Lohan spent 84 minutes in jail after pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of being under the influence of cocaine and no contest to two counts of driving with a blood-alcohol level above 0.08 percent and one count of reckless driving.

Nicole Richie was arrested after being pulled over while driving her black Mercedes under the influence. Reportedly, the arresting agency received several 911 calls about a car matching Richie's driving the wrong way down a Burbank highway.

Paris Hilton was arrested and charged with suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI). Los Angeles, California police stopped the 25 year-old hotel heiress and social icon in Hollywood around 12:30 am Thursday after noticing her driving "erratically."

LA Police Officers observed symptoms of intoxication and conducted a field sobriety test, which Hilton reportedly failed. A breath test registered a blood alcohol level just above the California legal limit of .08. She was charged with a misdemeanor DUI and released.

Continue reading "High Profile Celebrity Arrests Linked to Rising Number of Female DUI Arrests" »