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

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.

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.

This Friday, December 18, the Sacramento Police Department will conduct a sobriety and drivers license checkpoint in south Sacramento, while CHP will have one in Rancho Cordova. These are the first of at least eight traffic screenings that law enforcement in the Sacramento region plans over the next two weeks.

Sacramento drivers are receiving particular scrutiny because of data showing that Sacramento ranks at the top of U.S. cities larger than a population of 250,000 in terms of injuries and fatalities caused by alcohol-related traffic accidents.

We strongly advise everyone to not drive after consuming alcohol or ingesting narcotics. The risk of injury to yourself and others is real, and the legal consequences can be severe. Moreover, California law enforcement conducts more DUI checkpoints than any other state and that number is only going to increase throughout 2010, dubbed by public safety agencies as the "Year of the Checkpoint." With district attorney's offices and courts pushing for harsher and harsher penalties for drunk drivers, you are well served to do whatever it takes to keep yourself and family and friends from driving while intoxicated. See our December 11 and August 18 posts for more information.

If you or someone you know is cited for a DUI, get experienced and knowledgeable legal representation. Contact the Law Office of Nancy King if you have any questions.

Sobriety and Drivers License CheckPoint Notification, Sacramento Police Department

CHP to conduct DUI checkpoint on Friday in Sacramento County, Sacramento Bee, December 16, 2009

More checkpoints bolster statewide, Sacramento DUI push, Sacramento Bee, December 17, 2009

With the holidays approaching and many people taking to the roads to visit family and friends, we thought it a good time to provide some highway safety data from Traffic: Why We Drive The Way We Do (And What It Says About Us), by Tom Vanderbilt. If you haven't read Traffic, get a copy and read it this weekend as you stay inside to avoid the rain. It's a tremendously interesting book that uses clear, accessible language to explain research on all aspects of life affected by motor vehicles and roads, including why it's best to form a single line when traffic merges from one lane down to two, the astonishing extent to which people are unaware of what's going on around them as they drive, and why roundabouts are safer than traffic signals.

The part of the book we'll focus on concerns the risk factors that contribute to traffic accidents.

• Speed: People in an accident at 50 miles per hour are fifteen times more likely to die than they are at 25 miles per hour
• Alcohol: Alcohol slows reflexes and diminishes the brain's ability to evaluate risk
• Gender: Men are more likely across all age groups to be involved in auto accidents
• Age: Teenagers are involved in more crashes because they lack experience behind the wheel, underestimate risk, and engage in activities that distract their attention, like talking on a cell phone
• Rural, non-interstate roads: The rate at which accidents occur is higher on country roads than it is on city streets

Interestingly, when analyzing accidents by profession, doctors are among the most accident-prone, perhaps because they tend to rush to and from work and can be fatigued after a long shift. Firefighters and pilots are toward the bottom of the risk list, perhaps because they are attuned to safety and their jobs give them skills that make them better drivers.

So as you enjoy time with family and go to end of the year parties, take it slow and be safe while on the roads. A little caution and some common sense can prevent injury, avoid entanglement with law enforcement, and make for a happy holiday season.

Tom Vanderilt's blog: How We Drive

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.

Sacramento made the pages of USA Today earlier this month after a crackdown by the California Highway Patrol on CUI, cycling under the influence. The story came as result of a CHP sweep of south Sacramento on October 23 that saw seven of 57 DUI arrests made against cyclists.

There is actually a specific section of the California vehicle code that deals with cycling under the influence. Section 21200.5 reads as follows:

• Notwithstanding Section 21200, it is unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle upon a highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug. Any person arrested for a violation of this section may request to have a chemical test made of the person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of that person's blood pursuant to Section 23612, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed. A conviction of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).

The key aspects of this code are that no specific blood alcohol level is required to determine CUI. Officers can cite a person for the mere presence of alcohol in the blood, or other evidence that the person has consumed alcohol, such as riding a bike erratically. Because CUI is based on subjective interpretation of events and evidence by police officers, people cited for CUI can benefit greatly from an attorney who can mount an effective defense.

In terms of penalties, though a CUI is listed by DMV on a person's driving record for three years, there are no restrictions on driving or points accrued for auto insurance. The maximum $250 fine is significantly less than what a person would pay for a DUI.

Though CUI can have its humorous qualities, it is still a serious matter that can benefit from legal representation. A conviction, even for a CUI, still ends up on a person's criminal record and can have consequences in the future. Contact the Law Office of Nancy King if you have any questions.

"Calif. Cops Crack Down on Drunken Biking," USA Today, November 1, 2009

California Vehicle Code Section 21200

Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully this morning announced a new program aimed to prevent and more aggressively prosecute DUI-related automobile crashes involving injury or death. The two-year program is sponsored by a $1 million grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The program will create a team of deputy district attorneys with specialized training in issues related to these more serious DUIs. Each incident will be prosecuted vertically, meaning that a single deputy DA will handle each case from the filing of criminal charges through trial. (Currently, DUI cases are handled by different deputy DAs at different phases of prosecution.)

Part of the grant will also be used for programs to educate the public on the dangers and consequences of drunk driving, with particular emphasis on educating young people.

As we've said before through this blog, we support all efforts to reduce the incidence of DUI. Given the tough stance on DUIs by district attorney offices throughout the Sacramento region, we encourage everyone to take the steps necessary to keep themselves and others from being the cause of drunk driving related injury or death. Our August 18 post has practical tips to keep yourself and others safe.

Finally, this more vigorous prosecution highlights the need for quality, experienced legal representation for people facing DUI charges. Call the Law Office of Nancy King if you have questions about this, or any other, criminal defense matter.

Press Release on Felony DUI Vertical Prosecution Team

Yesterday's post summarized newly passed California state law AB 91, which establishes pilot programs in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Alameda, and Tulare counties requiring people convicted of DUIs to have ignition interlock devices (IIDs) installed on their cars. Today's post explains why we think this new law should be challenged as unconstitutional. While we're sure that supporters of AB 91 are well intentioned and desire only to curtail drunk driving, we nonetheless believe that the law is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Here is our argument: It is one thing for the state to set up general parameters for programs and then let localities decide for themselves the best means of implementation; it is another, and we think untenable, matter for the state to impose harsher penalties on the residents of four counties in the state and leave the penalties for residents of the rest of the counties unchanged. AB 91's IID requirement for Sacramento, Los Angeles, Alameda, and Tulare counties imposes just this sort of inequitable system. Calling it a pilot program doesn't justify or validate the uneven terms of punishment. What's to keep the legislature from passing a law mandating that people living in northern California automatically lose all driving privileges for 15 years after a first-time DUI conviction? Nothing except common sense (which the legislature often lacks) if AB 91 is allowed to stand.

Again, we support programs that reduce not just the number of DUI convictions but also the number of drunk drivers on the road, as long as those programs do not violate our rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. We see this law, no matter how well intentioned, as a violation of the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law.

We would rather see discretion left with the courts or even a statewide program that gives people convicted of DUI the option of having the IID installed on their vehicles in lieu of a license suspension. Many people lose their jobs when their driver's licenses are suspended as a result of a DUI conviction. The IID would be a good alternative that would keep people from driving while intoxicated, allow them to keep their jobs, and remain productive members of society.

Text of AB 91

We're putting the finishing touches on a post stating our concerns about AB 91, the new California law requiring ignition interlock devices on vehicles operated by DUI offenders, signed yesterday by Governor Schwarzenegger. In a nutshell, our reservations deal with what we see as the law's violation of citizens' 14th Amendment equal protection rights. In the meantime, we're providing this summary of the law's provisions.

AB 91 does nothing to change the current system of license suspensions and other penalties for DUI convictions. It establishes a pilot program in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Alameda, and Tulare counties requiring people convicted of DUIs to have ignition interlock devices (IIDs) installed on their cars. This test program begins July 1, 2010, and expires on January 1, 2016, unless the legislature acts to renew it and possibly expand it to the rest of the state.

People convicted of DUI (California Vehicle Code 23152) will have to install IIDs on all vehicles they operate for these periods of time:
First offense - 5 months
Second offense - 12 months
Third offense - 24 months
Fourth offense - 36 months

People convicted of DUI and causing injury to another person (California Vehicle Code 23153) will have to install IIDs on all vehicles they operate for these periods of time:
First offense - 12 months
Second offense - 24 months
Third offense - 36 months
Fourth offense - 48 months

AB 91 requires that DUI offenders pay for the approximately $75 installation cost of the IIDs and $50 monthly monitoring expense unless they meet these criteria:
100% of the federal poverty level or less - pay 10% of the cost
101 to 200% of the federal poverty level - pay 25% of the cost
201 to 300% of the federal poverty level - pay 50% of the cost

Continue reading "AB 91: California's New DUI Law Requiring Ignition Interlock Devices" »

Last week a Los Angeles Superior Court judge agreed to Mel Gibson's request to have his 2006 DUI conviction expunged from his record. This event allows us to follow up on our September 25 post on the expungement process and drive home a couple key points.

First, Mr. Gibson - like all other applicants for expungement in California - had to meet these criteria to qualify: complete probation, pay all fines and restitution, not have spent time in state prison for the offense, and not currently have any criminal charges pending.

Second, the expungement does not remove any mention of the DUI from his criminal record. Instead, his record will now show a dismissal pursuant to California Penal Code Section 1203.4. This is done so that if Mr. Gibson receives another DUI in the future the courts will have a record of what he did before and be able to impose a stiffer penalty. In other words, it will still be considered a "prior" for the purposes of future DUI arrests.

So the process of expungement exists to allow people who have learned from their past mistakes and deserve the opportunity to move forward with their lives without the stigma of a conviction on their records. It also gives the courts a record of what occurred so that if any crimes are committed after the expungement, more severe penalties can be administered.

Continue reading "Mel Gibson's Expungement" »

DUI penalties have become substantially more severe in California over the last 10 years as a result of the nationwide campaign against drunk driving. This makes it imperative that people do what it takes to not drink and drive. For common sense suggestions to keep yourself and others safe, see our August 18 post.

The penalty a person receives for a drunk driving conviction depends on two factors: the number of prior convictions and aggravating circumstances. Here's a basic outline of possible penalties without consideration of aggravating issues.

First offense DUI -- Fines between $390 and $1000, jail time from 48 hours to six months, license suspension for six months, probation from three to five years, and other penalties
Second offense DUI -- Fines between $390 and $1000, jail time from 10 days to one year, license suspension for one year, probation from three to five years, and other penalties
Third offense DUI -- Fines between $390 and $1000, jail time from 120 days to one year, license suspension for two years, probation from three to five years, and other penalties
Fourth offense DUI -- Fines between $390 and $1000, jail time from 180 days to one year, license suspension for three years, and other penalties. A fourth DUI is a felony offense if all previous DUI convictions occurred within 10 years.

For each of the offenses outlined above, keep in mind that fees and penalty assessments can increase fines 500% or more.

Continue reading "DUI Penalties and Prior Convictions" »