Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

With abundant rain this winter, California's lakes, reservoirs, and rivers are quickly filling up. And as the weather gets warmer, more people will take out their boats for a relaxing day on the water. Everyone who enjoys boating, though, needs to keep in mind California's strict laws regarding boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Harbors and Navigation Code 655 lays out the rules regarding operation of watercraft in the California. This law makes it:

• A crime to operate a recreational vessel with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or higher.
• A crime to operate a commercial vessel with a blood alcohol content of 0.04% or higher.
• A crime to operate a water ski or aquaplane after ingesting any amount of alcohol or drug.
• A crime to use a water ski or aquaplane in a "reckless or negligent manner" that poses a danger to others.

Many people assume that they get a free pass from law enforcement when consuming alcohol on the local rivers because it's not illegal to have an open container on a boat. The reality is different though. BUI is considered especially dangerous because of the speeds that boats can attain, the difficulty of stopping a boat quickly, and the lack of distinct lanes of traffic compared to streets and freeways.

Penalties for BUI are severe with fines up to $1000 and jail time of up to six months. In addition, though a 2008 California Supreme Court case made it clear that the DMV is not allowed to suspend a person's automobile driver's license for conviction of a BUI, a BUI conviction can be counted as a "prior" if the person is arrested for DUI within the next 10 years.

The sheriff's department of each county is responsible for patrolling waterways in its jurisdiction. The Sacramento Sheriff's Department, for example, oversees the Sacramento River north of downtown Sacramento all the way down through the delta region at the county's southern border. The Yolo County Sheriff's Department covers the Sacramento River, Cache Canyon, Putah Creek, and other waterways within the county. The Yolo Sheriff's Department just announced, in fact, that it is using a grant from the state to purchase additional watercraft for law enforcement and rescue operations.

If you have been arrested for boating under the influence, call Nancy King at (916) 442-1200 for a free and confidential consultation.

Our last post covered the similarities and differences between a DUI involving alcohol and a DUI involving drugs. Today's post explains the role of the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) in DUID.

Typically, a DUID evaluation begins after a driver has been pulled over for erratic driving and the officer, after administering a breath alcohol test, determines that the driver has not ingested alcohol.

In DUID cases, law enforcement relies on two things: 1) blood or urine tests to determine if drugs are present in the person's system, and 2) observations of the person's physical condition and behavior. Because of the technical nature of this type of investigation and evidence, police and the CHP rely on Drug Recognition Experts, or DREs, officers who receive special training in recognition of the influence of drugs.

The DRE follows a 12-step protocol to assess the situation:

1. Breath alcohol test
2. Interview of the arresting officer
3. Preliminary examination and first pulse reading
4. Eye examination
5. Divided attention psychophysical tests similar to field sobriety tests
6. Vital signs and second pulse reading
7. Examination of eye pupils
8. Examination of muscle tone
9. Check for injection sites and third pulse reading
10. Subject's statements and other observations
11. Analysis and opinions of the evaluator
12. Toxicological examination from urine, blood, or saliva

If the officer making the traffic stop is trained as a DRE, he simply follows the 12-step protocol. If he isn't a DRE, he calls for one to come to the scene to conduct the investigation. The DRE's evaluation is then used by the district attorney's office in its attempt to gain a conviction.

If no DRE is available, the arresting officer takes detailed notes of what he observed. If the case goes to trial in that instance, the district attorney can have a DRE testify as an expert witness and give his or her interpretation of the arresting officer's notes. But without direct evaluation by a DRE, conviction of DUID becomes much more difficult.

All of the issues highlighted in the previous post regarding defense against DUID charges are pertinent to the DRE's evaluation. The rate at which drugs leave the system, impairment through use of medications, the role of fatigue and emotional distress, and inconsistencies in the application of the 12-step protocol by the DRE should all be evaluated by your attorney in devising a defense strategy.

Call Nancy King at 916-442-1200 if you have questions about DREs, DUID, or other topics discussed in this blog.

The section of the California Vehicle Code that governs driving under the influence of alcohol also sets the rules for driving under the influence of drugs, or DUID. But DUID cases differ from alcohol related cases in several important respects, each of which influences the defense that can be mounted against the charges.

When someone is cited for driving under the influence of alcohol, two criminal charges are filed: 23152 (a) and 23152 (b). Section (a) declares that, "It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, to drive a vehicle." Section (b) makes it illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater.

Driving under the influence of drugs lacks the specific measure of intoxication laid out in section (b). Therefore, conviction of DUID rests solely on law enforcement's ability to demonstrate that a person's capacity to operate a vehicle safely was impaired by the presence of drugs in his or her system. In other words, all DUID cases rely solely on section (a) and its prohibition of driving under the influence of a drug.

It is important to note that DUID can arise from impairment by both legal and illegal drugs. Use of marijuana or methamphetamines can lead to arrest for DUID, but so can use of prescription and non-prescription painkillers, anti-depressants, allergy medications, antibiotics, or any other drug. Any chemical that diminishes a person's ability to safely operate a vehicle can be used as the basis for arrest and conviction for DUID.

Continue reading "Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID)" »

A report by California Watch and UC Berkeley's Investigative Reporting Program documents the growing number of car impoundments at police checkpoints throughout the state, and presents compelling evidence that this increase has been motivated in large part by the resulting revenue that flows to cash strapped local governments.

Checkpoints conducted by the CHP and local police have increased dramatically in recent years as a means to combat DUI. But many police agencies don't just check drivers' sobriety. They also ask to see a driver's license, and if they find an unlicensed driver, they impound the car for 30 days.

The constitutional problem is this: the Federal Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2005 that such impoundments constitute an "unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment . . . if the only justification is that the driver is unlicensed." CHP has ceased impounding vehicles since that ruling, but many police agencies - including the Sacramento Police Department - continue the practice.

At checkpoints last year throughout the state, 24,000 cars were impounded, nearly 8 times the number of DUI arrests made. And the irony is that while an unlicensed driver loses his car for 30 days, a drunk driver can retrieve his car after only one day.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that a person who leaves her driver's license at home and goes through a checkpoint will have her car impounded. The focus is on people who are not legally licensed to drive.

Many of those drivers who have their cars impounded are illegal immigrants who simply abandon their vehicles in impoundment. The sale of those vehicles results in additional revenue to local governments.

All of this adds up to big money. In 2009, towing fees, fines, and car auctions generated $40 million, split between towing companies and local agencies. Additionally, $30 million, provided by the California Office of Traffic Safety, went to pay for police overtime to staff the checkpoints.

The Ninth Circuit Court is expected to make another ruling on this issue later this year. We hope that they make it clear that these impoundments violate the Constitution's protection against unreasonable seizures.

"Car seizures at DUI checkpoints prove profitable for cities, raise legal questions," Ryan Gabrielson, California Watch, February 13, 2010

The tortured tale of time credits at the Sacramento County jail seems to finally have come to a close. Judge Loren McMaster on Friday ruled against the request by the Sacramento Sheriff's Deputies Association to block implementation at the jail of a new state law increasing the amount of early release time inmates could earn for good behavior.

The ruling comes after a hearing that saw the sheriff's deputies association on one side arguing against the new law, and the Sacramento district attorney's office, Sacramento public defender's office, and the state attorney general's office all on the other side arguing for it.

Keep in mind that before this new law went into effect January 25, state prison and county jail inmates in California were already able to earn early release if they met good behavior requirements. All the new law did was increase the amount of credit that could be earned. (See our previous posts for full explanations of this.) The new law was seen as necessary because of the twin problems of budget constraints and overcrowding in jails and prisons.

Throughout this battle, the sheriff's deputies association has made two arguments: the new law was meant to increase time credits at state prisons only, not county jails; and the increased number of prisoners obtaining early release would endanger the public.

In the end, McMaster was not persuaded. County jail inmates will now get one day of credit toward early release for each day they serve with good behavior.

The actions by the deputies' union do raise questions, though, especially after the deputies were opposed in court by their law enforcement partners, the district attorney and the attorney general. It seems clear to us that the new law applies to county jails, not just state prisons. If the deputies want to return to the provisions of the old law, they are better served trying to get the legislature and governor to pass an amended law rather than circumventing the legislative process.

What was their motivation?

The new state law that increases the amount of time a jail sentence may be reduced for good behavior continues to be the subject of an ill-considered legal battle in Sacramento County. (For a review of the law's provisions, see our previous post.)

The superior court judge who last week issued an order blocking enforcement of the law yesterday reversed himself and said that the law must be implemented until county jail inmates are able to bring their legal concerns before the court. "While county jail inmates may not be indispensable parties in the technical sense," Judge Loren McMaster wrote, "they are real parties in interest since the resolution of this matter directly affects them and their status."

While we're pleased that McMaster has temporarily allowed the law to be implemented, we still disagree with his original ruling. The legislature clearly meant for the new law to merely amend a previous state law that already allowed state prison and county jail inmates to be released early for good behavior. All the new law did was increase the amount of credit that could be earned in an attempt to relieve prison and jail overcrowding.

Sadly, McMaster's rulings have only resulted in confusion and inequity. We know of at least one inmate who got caught in the middle of this wrangling and received no credit at all for good behavior, because he entered Sacramento County Jail just as McMaster issued his original injunction blocking the new law, and was released today, just as the injunction was lifted.

At least one issue has been clarified: The California Attorney General's Office has advised the Sacramento Sheriff's Department, which oversees the jail, that the new system of determining time credits should only apply to time served after January 25.

More on this issue as it develops.

"More inmates to be released early as Sacramento judge rescinds earlier order," Sacramento Bee, February 17, 2010

Confusion reigns at the Sacramento County Jail after a Sacramento Superior Court judge blocked implementation of a new state law increasing the amount of time credit inmates at the county jail can get for good behavior.

Judge Loren McMaster issued the injunction on Wednesday in response to a lawsuit brought by the Sacramento County sheriff's deputies union, which claims that the California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009 applies only to state prisons and not county jails.

The new law, enacted by the legislature and the governor to deal with overcrowding of California's prisons and jails, was meant merely to modify and expand a previous state law that allowed prisoners, both in the state prison system and county jails, to have their sentences reduced if they met certain good behavior criteria. Under the old law, prisoners were eligible for fifty percent credit, meaning a one day sentence reduction for every two days served. That meant someone sentenced to 60 days could be released after 40 days. The new law increased the opportunity for time credits to one day reduced sentence for each day served, giving a person with a 60-day sentence the chance to get out in 30 days.

The absurdity of this situation comes in many forms:

• The Sacramento Sheriff's Department, along with sheriff's departments in 20 other California counties, has taken the official position of implementing the law. As a result now you have the Sheriff's Department saying it intends to enforce the new law while the sheriff's deputies union fights to block it.
• After Judge McMaster issued the injunction on Wednesday, the Sheriff's Department declared that there would be NO GOOD TIME CREDIT GIVEN AT ALL until the matter is resolved, even though such credit had been granted for 34 years under previous law. So now you have people in custody who would have been granted one-for-two credit for good behavior under the old law, were expecting to get one-for-one credit under the new law, and now find that they get no credit at all.
• Complicating things even more, McMaster on Thursday issued a clarification that said that good time credit would continue to be awarded, but only for the portions of sentences served before January 25, the date the new law took effect.
• And finally, some Sacramento judges are apparently giving out sentences with calculations for credit for time served based on the old law.

The state legislature is apparently working to pass a law that would clarify who should receive credits, but given the shambles that is our legislature (what's happened to Abel Maldonado's nomination for lieutenant governor is a good example) we shouldn't expect quick action. The result is that this has taken away the incentives for good behavior for people serving time in county jail, and exacerbated an already serious problem of jail overcrowding.

What a mess.

Last week the California Supreme Court gave its approval to arrest warrants that identify a suspect by DNA profile alone. Federal and state laws allow so-called 'John Doe' warrants, which identify a suspect by means other than a name. The question before the Court was whether a DNA profile satisfies the 'particularity' requirement, meaning that it identifies a suspect with sufficient clarity. The Court ruled that the unique quality of each person's DNA serves as an adequately precise descriptor of a suspect and thus is valid for arrest warrants.

The case involved Paul Robinson, who in 2000 was arrested in Sacramento County for a sexual assault that took place in 1994. The Sacramento D.A.'s office had issued an arrest warrant for the case four days before the end of the six-year statute of limitations period. Instead of the suspect's name, the warrant listed his DNA profile, which came from evidence at the crime scene. A few weeks later, an amended arrest warrant was issued, this time with the suspect's name, which had been obtained when the crime scene DNA evidence matched a profile in the state's DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base. Robinson was arrested, subsequently found guilty in Sacramento Superior Court and sentenced to state prison.

Robinson appealed his conviction on three grounds: 1. The original 'John Doe' arrest warrant did not constitute a valid commencement of prosecution within the statute of limitations period; 2. His DNA profile did not satisfy the 'particularity' requirement of an arrest warrant; 3. The police should not have been able to use his DNA profile in their investigation since it was obtained from an invalid application of the DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank Act while he was incarcerated for another offence in 1999.

The Supreme Court's majority disagreed with Robinson on all three issues. First, it affirmed that a 'John Doe' arrest warrant counts as the beginning of a prosecution and thus falls within the statute of limitations. Second, use of a DNA profile to identify a suspect on an arrest warrant is valid. The Court stated that, "For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that the arrest warrant in question, which described the defendant by his 13-loci DNA profile and included an explanation that the profile had a random match probability such that there was essentially no chance of its being duplicated in the human population except in the case of genetically identical sibling, complied with the mandate of our federal Constitution that the person seized be described with particularity." Finally, the Court said that though the blood draw that placed Robinson's information in the DNA data base violated provisions of the DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank Act of 1998, law enforcement personnel had made good faith attempts to comply with the law. The DNA evidence, therefore, need not be excluded.

The Court's decision does not mean that there is agreement about this issue. The two justices who dissented in the Robinson case argued that allowing 'John Doe' arrest warrants based on DNA evidence merely allows law enforcement to improperly extend the statute of limitations on a case. We'll have to watch the U.S. Supreme Court to see if it takes up this case or others like it.

If you have questions about arrest warrants, call the Law Office of Nancy King at 916-442-1200 for a free and confidential consultation.

The People v. Paul Eugene Robinson, Supreme Court of California, January 25, 2010

A wet reckless is a negotiated plea bargain that in certain cases is an advantageous outcome to a DUI arrest. The term wet reckless doesn't actually appear in the California Vehicle Code but derives from the provisions of section 23103.5 VC. It is essentially a conviction of reckless driving with alcohol related circumstances.

As with all negotiated pleas, a wet reckless is seen as offering something to both sides. Though the prosecution gives up the chance to get a DUI conviction, it does get a conviction of the lesser charge of reckless driving, as well as the ability to count the wet reckless as a DUI if the defendant gets another DUI within ten years. And though the defendant agrees to plead guilty to reckless driving involving alcohol, he gets the benefit of avoiding some of the harsher penalties that come with a DUI.

Typically, district attorney's offices are open to negotiating a wet reckless when the defendant's blood alcohol level is at or just above the legal limit of .08 and/or the circumstances of the arrest and the quality of the evidence weaken the prosecution's case.

Advantages of a wet reckless over a DUI:

• Jail sentences are typically shorter or waived altogether since a wet reckless does not have a minimum required jail term like a DUI.
• Probation periods can be shorter, reducing the chances that a person will do something to violate the terms of probation and thus incur additional penalties.
• There is no mandated suspension of the driver's license, obviously important for people who drive to work or who drive vehicles as part of their employment, such as truck drivers or delivery company workers.
• People with professional licenses (for example, attorneys, doctors, and pharmacists) can avoid sanctions that would normally come with a DUI conviction.
• Fines are lower, usually half of those for a DUI.

Disadvantages of a wet reckless:

• Like a DUI, a wet reckless can result in increased insurance rates.
• If another DUI is received within 10 years, the wet reckless conviction is treated like a prior DUI conviction when determining penalties.
• The DMV, through its Administrative Per Se hearing, can still suspend the driver's license of someone who accepts a wet reckless plea. (See our November 27, 2009 post for a detailed explanation of DMV hearings.)

It's important to understand that a wet reckless can only be negotiated by your criminal defense lawyer before trial begins. The police cannot arrest you for a wet reckless and it is not a sentencing option after trial. If you've been arrested for a DUI and have questions about a wet reckless plea, call the Law Office of Nancy King at 916-442-1200.

Two trials from southern California this month highlight the dangers of bicycle riding on California's crowded roads and the consequences for motorists who injure or kill bicyclists.

One incident, from 2008, involved Christopher Thompson, a doctor from the wealthy Los Angeles enclave of Brentwood. While driving to work on Mandeville Canyon Road, Thompson apparently became angry at a group of bicyclists, pulled his car ahead of them and then slammed on his breaks, causing serious injuries to two of the riders. Thompson claimed that the cyclists were making it hard for him to pass and making obscene gestures toward him, and he was stopping merely to get a photograph as evidence. The jury nonetheless found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and mayhem, and the judge sentenced him to five years in prison.

The other incident, from 2009 in San Diego County, involved a man who was driving his BMW in a bike lane and hit and killed a cyclist. Since the driver claimed to have never seen the cyclist and wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol, he was found to be merely negligent, meaning he was inattentive and careless rather than reckless or willfully hurtful. His conviction of misdemeanor manslaughter comes with three years probation, fines of $700, and mandated community service of 100 hours.

Both cases draw attention to the need for more bike lanes throughout the state and improved education of drivers of the need to share the road with cyclists. Bicyclists must also be aware of the need to obey all traffic laws. As California's roads become more congested, and more people take to riding their bikes to improve their health and save on transportation costs, we have to figure out how these two modes of transportation can coexist.

"Los Angeles Doctor Gets 5 Years For Injuring Cyclists," Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2010

"Criminal Penalties Limited When Cars Hit Cyclists," North County Times, January 16, 2010

The new year brings a slew of new laws for Californians, more than 800 in fact. In addition to SB 598, which we profiled in our January 4 post, these new laws include:

SB 159 and SB 240 - require California motorists to slow down and, if possible, move to a lane away from emergency personnel, CalTrans workers, and tow truck drivers.

AB 576 - defines cities and counties as victims of graffiti, allowing them to seek restitution from taggers.

AB 962 - requires sellers of ammunition to keep a record of sales and ask for identification from purchasers.

AB 58 - defines participation in a sports betting pool (like an office might organize for the Super Bowl) as an infraction, as long as the pool is for less than $2500 (previous law categorized this as a misdemeanor or felony).

And finally our favorite (though it doesn't deal with criminal law), AB 606, which creates the California Blueberry Commission to "carry out programs of education, promotion, marketing, and research relating to blueberries." Believe it or not, the text of this law is over 7000 words! The Blueberry Commission is estimated to cost $1.2 million, paid for by the blueberry industry.

A new California law gives state residents convicted of second and third DUIs a new option that allows them to obtain a restricted license sooner than under previous law.

Until now, penalties for a 2nd DUI included a mandatory one-year suspension of driving privileges, while a 3rd DUI had a mandatory two-year suspension.

SB 598, which takes effect July 1, 2010, allows people to reduce the suspension time if they agree to have an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) installed on their vehicles and maintain enrollment in a DUI education program. Specifically, someone convicted of a 2nd DUI could get a restricted license after 90 days and someone convicted of a 3rd DUI could get a restricted license after 6 months.

IIDs require that a person blow into an alcohol detection device before starting a vehicle; if any alcohol is detected, the vehicle will not start. Restricted licenses allow people to drive in the course of their employment and to and from their alcohol education classes.

Our reading of the law is that it will apply to all people whose licenses have been suspended, not just those who are convicted after the law takes effect.

The full text of the bill, which amends California Vehicle Code 13352, can be accessed by clicking here.

If your license has been suspended because of a DUI, call the Law Office of Nancy King to learn about your options under this new law.

You can also read about AB 91 - the law which creates an IID test program in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Alameda, and Tulare counties - by reading our October 13 and 14 posts.

People who have a "juvenile delinquency adjudication" - commonly referred to as a juvenile record - may petition the court to have that record sealed through the provisions of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 781. As with expungement for adults, sealing of juvenile records is important for people who violated the law in the past but have since that time maintained a clean record and been contributing members of society.

It's important to understand the difference between juvenile and adult courts. Adult criminal courts in California deal with people 18 years of age and older accused of violating state and local laws. Adults found guilty of misdemeanors or felonies have a criminal record. It is possible at a later date to have this record expunged, whereby the conviction is replaced by a dismissal if specific requirements are met and the court believes that the person has learned from his/her experience. (See all our posts on expungement.)

Juvenile courts deal with minors, people 17 years of age and younger. A person found guilty in juvenile court has a juvenile delinquency adjudication rather than a criminal conviction. The idea is that since young people are not always appreciative of their responsibilities as citizens and understanding of the consequences of their actions, they should not have the stigma of a criminal conviction. Nonetheless, juvenile violations can still hinder people's ability to obtain employment or apply for college, even though they can legally answer no if asked if they have a criminal record. Thus the importance of having juvenile records sealed.

Having juvenile records sealed means that the court orders that all documents pertaining to the case - court records, police and probation reports - are sealed and inaccessible. (Exceptions to this are DMV records pertaining to driving violations.) Once the records are sealed, a person may legally say that he has no convictions and the courts and law enforcement must say that they have no record of a violation. Records are destroyed five years after they are sealed.

You may petition to have your juvenile records sealed if:

• It has been five years since your supervision by juvenile court ended or you have reached 18 years of age, whichever comes first;
• Your case began and ended in juvenile court;
• You have not been convicted of an adult court felony, or an adult court misdemeanor involving moral turpitude;
• You have not been convicted of any crimes listed under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707(b) after turning 14 years of age, including murder, arson, violent felonies, robbery, certain types of assaults and sex offenses and other serious violations;
• You can demonstrate that you have been rehabilitated;
• You do not have civil actions pending against you related to the incident that you wish sealed;
• You have paid all fines and restitution.

Continue reading "Sealing Juvenile Records" »

A person charged with a DUI in California faces two parallel reviews of his case. One path takes him through the court system in the county where the alleged crime occurred. The district attorney's office looks over the facts of the case and any criminal history of the defendant and determines whether to file criminal charges. If charges are filed, the matter is dealt with in the local superior court, with a defense attorney representing the defendant, the prosecutor trying for a conviction, a jury determining guilt or innocence if a trial is necessary, and a judge overseeing the entire process.

The other path for a DUI, less well known to the public, takes the defendant through the Department of Motor Vehicles and what's called an administrative per se hearing. The purpose of the admin per se hearing is strictly to determine whether DMV will suspend the defendant's driver's license. It does not determine whether a person is guilty of a crime and has no bearing on a person's criminal record. The DMV hearing is completely separate from what occurs in the court process described above. In fact, a jury could find a defendant not guilty of a DUI and DMV could still suspend the driver's license.

This is what happens leading up to the hearing:

• All people arrested for DUI in California automatically have their driver's licenses taken by the police/sheriff/CHP and receive a temporary driving permit good for 30 days.
• The default action after that is that DMV will automatically suspend defendants' driver's licenses, with the length of the suspension depending on whether the defendant has had previous DUI violations and whether he submitted to a blood alcohol test.
• To avoid this automatic license suspension, DUI defendants must submit a request to DMV for an admin per se hearing within 10 calendar days of the arrest.
• Once the hearing has been requested, DMV issues another temporary license that's good until the outcome of the hearing.

The hearing is overseen not by a judge but by a DMV Hearing Officer. There is no jury and no prosecuting attorney. The Hearing Officer reviews the evidence, listens to the arguments presented by the defendant's attorney, and decides whether to suspend the license. The standard used by the Hearing Officer is different than that used in court. Where court trials use the demanding standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, DMV hearings use preponderance of evidence. This means that all that is needed to suspend the driver's license is for the Hearing Officer to believe that more evidence of guilt exists than does evidence of innocence. Moreover, different rules of evidence apply to the DMV hearing compared to a court trial. For example, hearsay statements - when one person describes statements made by another person - are prohibited in court trials but are admissible in DMV hearings.

Because of this complicated process and the less stringent evidence standards, an experienced and knowledgeable defense attorney is critical to presenting the best possible case for preserving a defendant's driver's license. If you have questions about the DMV hearing process or other issues related to California DUI law, call the Law Office of Nancy King.

As the holidays approach, it's a good time to review California state and local laws relating to fireworks. While few people set off fireworks over Thanksgiving, many do on New Year's Eve and some find themselves facing criminal charges because they don't know what's legal and what isn't.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has an extensive compilation of the text of California's fireworks laws in a report titled Laws and Regulations for Transportation, Use, and Storage of Fireworks in California. A searchable database of fireworks laws, and all California laws, can be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov, the Official California Legislative Information website.

While California's fireworks laws have many details, the broad outline is simple.

• Consumer fireworks approved by the State Fire Marshall as "safe and sane" may be sold to the general public only between June 28 and July 6.
• State law does not impose limits on when consumer fireworks may be used.
• Counties and cities, however, have the authority to impose more stringent limits on consumer fireworks, including limiting their sale and use and instituting an outright ban.
• All other fireworks - those classified as dangerous by the State Fire Marshall - may not be sold to the general public, and people who possess and use them face criminal charges.

Section 12505 of the California Health and Safety Code has a lengthy list of fireworks considered dangerous and therefore illegal. Among these are:

• Fireworks that contain arsenic sulfide, magnesium, zirconium, and numerous other chemicals
• Firecrackers, skyrockets, roman candles, chasers, large sparklers
• Any other firework that the State Fire Marshall deems "unsafe for use by any person not specially qualified or trained in the use of fireworks"

Sections 12677 and 12700 make the mere possession of these dangerous fireworks unlawful, with fines and jail time dependant on the amount and type of fireworks involved and whether the defendant has previous violations.

As mentioned above, local governments may enact more restrictive regulations on the sale, possession, and use of fireworks, and the Sacramento region is a patchwork of different policies. For example, "safe and sane" consumer fireworks may be sold and used in Roseville but are illegal in unincorporated areas of Placer County, including Granite Bay. In the city of Sacramento, approved consumer fireworks may be used only between June 28 and July 4, while El Dorado County bans consumer fireworks altogether.

Fireworks displays - like you see at the State Fair or Disneyland - require a special license issued by the State Fire Marshall, approval of local authorities, and insurance.

As the end of the year approaches, take the time to understand the state and local laws regarding fireworks. If you have any questions or are facing criminal charges related to fireworks, call the Law Office of Nancy King.