Articles Posted in DUI

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Whether you think this is a good thing or another step towards a “Big Brother” future, there is an effort to make drunk driving detection a standard feature in all new cars.  New technologies allow impaired driving detection through sensors that can monitor the driver’s eye movement as well as touch and breath sensors that detect alcohol. We already have breath sensors (Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDS)) that many who are convicted of drunk driving are required to install. Reportedly there are approximately 250 such technologies which use smell, touch, camera and/or audio or visual detection.  New regulations may mean that in the future all new cars will be required to install some sort of impaired driving device.

Congress has passed a bill that requires the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue a regulation by 2026 that all new passenger vehicles include equipment that monitors for impairment of the driver. This does not mean that all 2026 passenger vehicles are going to be equipped with this technology; the 2026 deadline-if it holds-only requires the NHTSA to issue a regulation.

If the vehicle detects impairment, the new cars must include a means for limiting the driver’s further operation of the vehicle. It is not clear by what mechanism the car could limit the operation of the vehicle. The provision terms the requirement “a national safety standard for passive, advanced impaired driving prevention system.” Some fear that there will be a remote-controlled or automatic “kill switch”. This is unfounded but not outside the realm of possibility since the NHSTA hasn’t issued the regulations yet.  Obviously, the car won’t be disabled amidst traffic. But whatever the technology, it will likely be some form of continuous driver monitoring.

If you have been arrested for a DUI in California, you may be wondering if the police can search your vehicle. The answer is not always straightforward. In general, the police can only search your vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of a crime. This means that they must have a reasonable belief that you have committed a crime, and that the evidence of that crime is in your vehicle.

Here are some examples:

Scenario One: You have been stopped for a traffic violation. The officer smells alcohol on your breath and believes you are over the per se limit of 0.08% BAC. You are placed under arrest for DUI. Can the officer then search your vehicle?

If you are convicted on a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) violation in California, you will be required to attend DUI classes as part of your sentence. The court may also order additional terms of your DUI probation such as attending AA meetings or community service. Failure to abide by the terms of your probation order can result in a number of consequences.

Typically, what happens after the court orders probation on a DUI conviction is that the DUI probationer is required to report his or her progress and/or completion of probation terms. Failing to complete any of the terms of DUI probation is considered a violation of probation and can lead to additional penalties. The court may order you pay fines, complete community service, or even send you to jail for violating probation. In reality though, the court will give you a “pass” on the first and even the second violation, depending on the severity of the violation.

The DMV might not be so forgiving.

For over four years now in California, ignition interlock installations are required after an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (even  for first-time offenses) if the driver wants to avoid a temporary suspension of his or her license to drive and mandatory for almost all D.U.I. convictions. The ignition interlock law has been heralded as a “win-win.” The law allows a driver to avoid a suspension of driving privileges and makes it near impossible for that driver to drive under the influence of alcohol as long as the device is installed.

But, how effective has the mandatory ignition interlock device (IID) law been in decreasing drunk drivers and more importantly, decreasing the frequency and severity of DUI-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities?

IIDs have been ordered upon the discretion of the court for many years, and in recent years, these installations have become mandatory in many states, as in California. California actually lags in this respect; by 2013, eighteen states had already made IIDs mandatory for all drunk-driving convictions. According to the CDC, IIDs reduce repeat offense driving under the influence of alcohol by 70%….while they are installed.  Data gathered from these eighteen states suggest approximately 15% fewer drunk-driving related traffic fatalities in a study published in the American Journal of Public Health. The CDC also cites more recent studies that indicate up to 26% reduction in alcohol-related fatal crashes in states requiring an IID upon conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol.

In California, a first-time driving under the influence (DUI) is a misdemeanor offense. However, there are a few exceptions where even a first time DUI may be charged as a felony.

Under Vehicle Code section 23550.5, subdivision (b) a conviction for a first time DUI within a ten-year period can result in a felony conviction punishable by imprisonment in state prison if the defendant had been previously convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Penal Code section 191.5) or vehicular manslaughter (Penal Code section 192.5). While section 191.5 has the element of intoxication, section 192.5 does not. Furthermore, while the DUI statutes generally have a ten-year look back window in prosecuting multiple DUI offenses, section 23550.5(b) does not.

Example: In 2008, Henry, then 18 years old was racing his car in an unlawful exhibition of speed in violation of Vehicle Code section 23109. His vehicle went out of control and broadsided another vehicle killing both occupants in that vehicle. Henry was not intoxicated. He was convicted on two counts of vehicular manslaughter (Penal Code section 192.5). Twelve years later, Henry was arrested for driving under the influence pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b). It was his first ever DUI arrest. Normally a first time DUI is a misdemeanor and very rarely, if ever, is punished by any jail time at all. But because Henry had a historical conviction of vehicular manslaughter, his DUI was charged as a felony and he faced a potential sentence of imprisonment.