by
According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, Laguna Beach has consistently had the highest number of DUI arrests per capita among cities of its size in California for at least two decades. For example, in 2021, the Laguna Beach Police Department reported 269 DUI arrests, up from 247 the previous year, despite the city having a small resident population of about 22,000. This high arrest rate is notable when compared to the city’s size, but with over 130 alcohol-serving establishments and millions of visitors each year, the city faces a persistent challenge with impaired driving

To address this, the Laguna Beach Police Department (LBPD) launched a groundbreaking initiative in 2024 to notify businesses when a DUI arrest is linked to their establishment. This program aims to reduce drunk driving by fostering awareness and responsibility among local bars, restaurants, and hotels.

How the Initiative Works

Continue reading →

by
As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly invades our everyday lives, it should be no surprise that AI is being used to tackle driving under the influence (DUI). An Israeli company, CorrActions, has developed a product that detects driver distraction and impairment.

The product, Driver NeuroMonitoring System, utilizes AI software that can detect the driver’s cognitive distraction due to alcohol or drug impairment or drowsiness. The “in- cabin” monitoring system detects impairment data from the steering wheel, seat, and other sensors. Using AI and neuroscience, the proprietary “NeuroMonitor” technology is based on EEG signals that are detected by muscle sub-movements. Working passively in the background, artificial intelligence continually updates the data points.

Upon detecting distracted driving, the product can take immediate corrective action, such as alerting the driver or taking safety measures. It is not clear what these safety measures are, but I can imagine that as more cars become autonomous with driver assisted AI doing much of the driving, one safety measure may be that upon detecting that the driver is distracted, the AI “driver” may “take the wheel” and safely pull off the road.

Continue reading →

by

As the holiday season approaches, celebrations across California often involve gatherings where alcohol consumption is common. While the festive spirit is in the air, it’s crucial to understand the legal implications of driving under the influence (DUI) during this period. Here’s a guide to help you navigate through the legal intricacies that come with a DUI in California, especially over the holidays.

Understanding DUI in California

In California, driving under the influence is defined under Vehicle Code sections 23152(a) and 23152(b). You can be charged with a DUI if you:

Continue reading →

by

In 2012, an Orange County woman, Sandra Hernandez, was camping with her family in North Dakota when a drunk driver ran over the family tent, killing her two young sons, ages 5 and 9. The driver who ran over the tent had four previous DUIs in California. Had he committed this crime in California, he would have been subject to the Watson law, and likely faced murder charges. But South Dakota had no similar law.

Following the tragedy of losing her only two children to a 4-time drunk driver, Ms. Hernandez and her husband initiated a campaign fighting for laws similar to the Watson murder law in all 50 states and lobbied the North Dakota legislature for tougher DUI laws. Her efforts were successful.

In 2013, Ms. Hernandez stood behind the North Dakota governor as he signed a bill with tougher DUI penalties. Just days after she stood behind the governor, Ms. Hernandez, while driving under the influence of alcohol in Grand Forks, North Dakota, lost control of her vehicle causing it to roll over. She was not injured, but she was charged with a misdemeanor DUI.

Continue reading →

by

What is the per se blood alcohol content (BAC) in California? Most people know it is, with certain exceptions, 0.08%. Above that limit and a driver is considered per se under the influence of alcohol.

Which number is greater: 0.08% (0.0008) or 0.013% (0.00013)? If you answered 0.0008, congratulations, you remember your eighth-grade math. Perhaps the Redlands Police Department and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office need to have a math refresher course.

In late 2022, a retired airline pilot was driving home after a restaurant dinner where he had one glass of wine. He found himself in a DUI checkpoint. That is where his nightmare began. While it is unclear from reports what prompted an officer manning the checkpoint to have the retired pilot step out of his vehicle and perform preliminary screening tests and then blow into the preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device, after doing so, the officer informed the pilot that he blew almost double over the legal limit of 0.08%.  The pilot was arrested, booked, and spent the night in jail. While at the police station a blood draw was also conducted.

Continue reading →

by

So say many experts who have studied the U.S. (including California’s) DUI limit of 0.08 percent. The only state that has a lower limit is Utah, which has a 0.05 percent per se limit.

After Utah lowered it limit in 2018, there was a near 20 percent decrease in fatal car crashes according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Although this decrease in fatal car crashes in Utah continues to be widely reported, The Salt Lake Tribune reports that this trend seen from 2018 and 2019 may have been short-lived. There has been a slight upward trend in Utah road fatalities since, but this may be attributable to a number of factors—then again, so might the decrease seen in 2018 and 2019.

Nevertheless, there is evidence also that some Utah drivers have adjusted their behavior since the enactment of the lower DUI limit. In a focus group conducted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, 22 percent of drivers who drink said they now look for alternative ways to get home after drinking, rather than driving themselves.

Continue reading →

by

Driving under the influence with a child under the age of 14 can result in a punishment enhancement and may also result in child endangerment charges. But there are other potential consequences to this offense of which most people are unaware. Among those potential consequences is being added to the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI). Most people are unaware of the database unless they find themselves added to it.

First an explanation of what CACI is. CACI is a database maintained by the California Department of Justice. It contains records of individuals who have been reported and investigated for child abuse or neglect in the state of California. The CACI is a confidential database but can be shared with certain agencies such as law enforcement, child protective services, and organizations that conduct background checks for positions involving children. Even most volunteer organizations that include children as clients will check the CACI data base on an individual who applies to volunteer with that organization.  It is important to note that being added to the CACI database does not require a conviction of child abuse but only a substantiated report of “severe neglect” of the child.

A conviction for driving under the influence with a child under the age of 14, and especially if that conviction included a child endangerment offense, may result in that driver being added to the CACI database. Why? Because driving under the influence with a child in the car may be considered severe neglect. The term “severe neglect” is defined by the law under which the CACI database is regulated as a situation where a person having the care and custody of a child willfully causes or allows the person or health of the child to be put in a situation where that child’s health is endangered. (Penal Code Section 11165.2, subd. (a).)  Driving while under the influence with a child in the car is considered criminal negligence, even if the driver believes he or she is able to drive safely while under the influence and is therefore willful conduct. That is, if the conduct was reckless or deviated from what an objective and reasonable person would consider safe making the conduct is criminally negligent and therefore willful under the eyes of the law.

Continue reading →

by

As we enter one of the biggest holiday periods in California, it might be time for an important PSA:

DON’T DRINK OR TAKE DRUGS AND DRIVE.

Last July 4th holiday period (June 30 through July 4), over 1,200 drivers were arrested for driving under the influence. Unfortunately, 90 individuals also lost their lives during that period due to alcohol or drug impaired driving. This year we are likely to see higher numbers since the 4th of July holiday period is longer than it was in 2023.

Continue reading →

by
In California, many convictions can be “expunged.” (The common term most people use is “expungement,” but it’s not actually an expungement, as will be clear as you read further.)

In most cases, an individual (defendant) convicted of DUI will be eligible to petition the court for this relief. Upon a successful petition, the court permits the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty and enter a plea of “not guilty,” or on a guilty verdict the court will set aside the guilty verdict. Thereafter, the court dismisses the accusation (complaint) filed against the defendant.

There are several requirements:

Continue reading →

by

A Story:

Michelle was involved in a serious accident at an Orange County intersection. Witnesses reported that Michelle caused the accident when she ran a red light. The occupant of the vehicle Michelle hit was killed. Michelle was injured and transported by ambulance to the hospital. At the hospital, a nurse administered a narcotic to Michelle to subdue her pain. The narcotic affected Michelle’s awareness.

Shortly after she arrived at the hospital, a police officer who was assigned to investigate the accident responded to Michelle’s hospital bed to question her about the accident. As the officer spoke with Michelle, he believed he smelled the odor of alcohol on her breath. The officer asks Michelle if she had been drinking prior to the accident. Michelle told the officer she had one glass of wine with dinner an hour before the accident. The officer asks Michelle to submit to a breathalyzer test, but given her compromised state, she was unable to complete the test. Due to the effect of the narcotics, the officer was unable to ascertain whether she was under the influence prior to her arrival at the hospital.

Continue reading →