Defending DUI Cases

Victim Restitution in DUI Criminal Matters

May 26, 2024 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

If you pled guilty to, or were convicted of, driving under the influence, the court must order restitution to any victims who claim economic losses from that incident. Under California Penal Code Section (“PC” hereafter) 1202.4(a)(1), “a victim of crime who incurs an economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from a defendant convicted of that crime.”

To the extent possible, the restitution order shall be prepared by the sentencing court, shall identify each victim and each loss to which it pertains, and shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant’s criminal conduct…”

The victim is required to submit the losses they believe were caused by the defendant while committing the crime. The defendant can agree or stipulate to the amount requested or request an evidentiary hearing to dispute the requested amount.

Drug DUIs Under Cal. Vehicle Code § 23152(f)

November 20, 2022 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

It’s common knowledge that driving under the influence of drugs is illegal in California. However, determining exactly what constitutes “driving under the influence of drugs” may come as a surprise. Vehicle Code § 23152(f) is the law that makes driving under the influence of drugs illegal. The law is about as clearly written as it can be: “It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle.”

While the law is clear in its wording, it still leaves a lot of questions. Below are some of the most common questions about charges related to driving under the influence of drugs.

Is It Illegal to Drive Under the Influence of All Drugs? Or Just Illegal Drugs?

What Is “Driving” Under the California DUI Statutes?

October 28, 2022 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law in California. While most people are aware of the laws against drunk driving, few understand how complex this area of law is. The vast majority of the time, California DUI cases are not as straightforward as they may seem. One of the most misunderstood aspects of California DUI law is the operation element.

Before a judge or jury can find you guilty of a DUI crime, the government must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were “driving” the vehicle. This is referred to as the operation element. In most states, prosecutors can meet the operation element of a DUI by showing that the defendant exercised physical control over the vehicle. However, in California, the law is slightly more favorable to defendants. To be found guilty of a California DUI, the prosecution must prove that you intentionally caused the vehicle to move by exercising physical control over it. Thus, if the vehicle didn’t move, you are not guilty of DUI.

That said, when referring to “movement,” any movement of the vehicle, however slight, qualifies as driving. Additionally, police officers can rely on circumstantial evidence to illustrate that a car had moved, even if they didn’t witness the car moving. For example, say that police officers respond to a call for a single-vehicle traffic accident. When the police arrive, they find a car wrapped around a utility pole. The driver is the only person inside the car, and there is a half-full bottle of whiskey on the driver’s side floorboard. In this situation, police officers would almost certainly arrest the driver for DUI, even though they didn’t observe the car moving. In doing so, they would rely on the following:

There was only one person in the car; and
The car had been in an accident.

In this situation, the circumstantial evidence suggests that the person found in the driver’s seat intentionally caused the vehicle to move by exercising physical control over the vehicle. While there is the possibility that someone switched seats with the driver, that is a defense that must be raised at trial. Continue reading ›

California Vehicle Code Section 14601.3: Habitual Offender Designation

December 1, 2017 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

California Vehicle Code Section (VC) 14601.3 states: “It is unlawful for a person whose driving privilege has been suspended or revoked to accumulate a driving record history which results from driving during the period of suspension or revocation. A person who violates this subdivision is designated a habitual offender.”

Once the person has been deemed a habitual offender, any subsequent driving offenses are subject to more severe penalties, including jail time. Upon a first conviction under this statute, the person shall be sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $1000 fine. A second or subsequent conviction within seven years of a prior conviction will result in 180 days in jail and a $2000 fine. Under 14601.3(e)(3), any habitual offender who is convicted of driving on a suspended license and the suspension is due to a DUI, the penalty is 180 days in jail, to be served consecutive to any other jail time imposed for violating any other law, plus a $2000 fine.

To convict someone under this statute, the prosecutor must prove: Continue reading ›

Arrested For DUI & Now Have A Probation Violation?

September 12, 2017 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Typically, when you are sentenced, and your sentence includes probation, one of the things you are ordered to do is not violate the law. If you are arrested, the arrest itself is not a probation violation. However, what ends up happening, is you will have a new open case and the probation violation trailing behind it, waiting to see what happens on your new case.

If you plead guilty to the new charge or are found guilty after a trial, the judge will then address the probation violation in a probation violation hearing. Typically that is done in front of the sentencing judge who put you on probation on the first case. However, the judge on your new case, if s/he has jurisdiction over the first matter, may address probation with the new case, in what is often called packaging or bundling both together.

The probation violation hearing has a lower standard of proof, meaning a judge only has to find that you violated the terms of probation “by a preponderance of the evidence” not “beyond a reasonable doubt” as required in criminal cases.

At the hearing, both the prosecutor and the probationer will be able to present evidence. If the judge finds that it is more likely than not that the probation terms were violated, Continue reading ›

Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs (DUID): California Vehicle Code Section 23152(e)

May 24, 2017 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Driving under the influence of drugs, or DUID, is essentially the same as a DUI with alcohol. The code section reads: “It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle. “

In essence, the prosecutor has to prove that the defendant drove a vehicle, and when s/he drove, s/he was under the influence of a drug. The drug can be an illegal substance, a prescribed medication or even an over-the-counter medicine that could affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person.

“Under the influence” is the hardest element for the government to prove. According to the California Jury Instructions (2110), “A person is under the influence if, as a result of…taking a drug, his or her mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.”

Unlike drunk driving cases involving alcohol, Continue reading ›

Exhibition Of Speed Negotiated Plea In A DUI Case

April 4, 2017 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

In California, if a person is initially arrested for driving under the influence, the case may be negotiated down to other, less severe charges such as a wet reckless, dry reckless, drunk in public, or even an exhibition of speed charge. Successful negotiation will depend upon the facts of the case.

In my experience in San Diego courts, exhibition of speed as a reduction from a drunk driving charge is rarely available as a negotiated plea, unless the case has some serious flaws and the prosecutor believes the DUI case cannot be proven in trial. However, I have been able to obtain such a result in a case that was filed in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Courthouse. My client had a .08 BAC on both the preliminary alcohol screening test and the evidentiary breath sample.

The exhibition of speed charge is found in California Vehicle Code Section 23109(c), and it does not mention alcohol, drinking, drugs, blood alcohol content, or under the influence. Therefore, it is a much better result for the defendant because the penalties are a lot less severe. There is no license suspension, unless Continue reading ›

San Diego DUI: Early Termination Of Probation/Expungement

May 24, 2016 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Once a driving under the influence defendant pleads guilty or is convicted after a jury trial, their criminal record will reflect this indefinitely. Since criminal records are public records, they can be easily searched and found by law enforcement agencies, employers, and state licensing agencies. Most probationers want to get their criminal record cleaned up as soon as possible so their record does not hinder them.

A standard DUI sentence includes a term of probation. Under California law, Penal Code Section 1203.4, a person is eligible for an expungement “in any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation.” There are a few exceptions to this rule where an expungement is not available. Examples of this are when the person served time in prison for this offense or the offense was a sex crime.

Most drunk driving cases are eligible for expungement.

One Leg Stand (OLS): A NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST)

October 6, 2015 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

As you will recall, Susan Hartman, of the Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman, attended The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and The International Association of Chiefs of Police (ICAP) approved DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Practitioner Course, as presented by Mr. Robert La Pier.

The course went through the three standardized field sobriety tests (SFST’s), as laid out by NHTSA: 1.) The horizontal gaze nystagmus, (HGN); 2.) The walk and turn, (WAT); and 3.) The one leg stand, (OLS). These are the only tests that have been validated by NHTSA and should be used by law enforcement in evaluating each potential DUI. It should be noted that these tests were only validated to correlate to a specific blood alcohol content (BAC) and they are not be used to show impairment.

The two previous blog articles discussed the HGN and WAT tests. This article will address the OLS test.

The NHTSA manual states that this “test requires a reasonably dry, hard, level, and non-slippery surface.” If the person is wearing heels that are more than two inches, they should be given the choice to remove the shoes and perform the test barefooted.

There are many reasons why a person may not be able to adequately perform this test, regardless of their consumption of alcohol. For instance, as a person ages, balance and coordination is more difficult. If a subject has any current or prior injuries to their back or legs, they suffer from inner ear problems, or they are overweight by 50 or more pounds, they may have problems performing the test. However, in my experience, officers often state, “I will take your concerns and medical issues into consideration,” and then they proceed with having the subject perform the test. Continue reading ›

Walk And Turn (WAT): One Of The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST’s)

September 30, 2015 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

As you will recall, Susan Hartman, of the Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman, attended The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and The International Association of Chiefs of Police (ICAP) approved DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Practitioner Course, as presented by Mr. Robert La Pier.

The course went through the three standardized field sobriety tests (SFST’s), as laid out by NHTSA: 1.) The horizontal gaze nystagmus; 2.) The walk and turn; and 3.) The one leg stand. These are the only tests that have been validated by NHTSA and should be used by law enforcement in evaluating each potential DUI. It should be noted that these tests were only validated to correlate to a specific blood alcohol content (BAC) and they are not be used to show impairment.

In the last blog article, the horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN, test was discussed. This article will address the walk and turn test, (WAT).

The NHTSA manual states that this “test should be conducted on a reasonably dry, hard, level, non-slippery surface.” If the person is wearing heels that are more than two inches, they should be given the choice to remove the shoes and perform the test barefooted.

There are many reasons why a person may not be able to adequately perform this test, regardless of their consumption of alcohol. Continue reading ›