Defending DUI Cases

San Diego Craft Beer Warning, Look Out For The ABV

July 8, 2013 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

San Diego is quickly becoming the craft brew capital of the world. Sandiego.org has dubbed San Diego the “Napa of beer” because of the number of craft breweries in the county. Many local tasting rooms, brew pubs and restaurants are now listing on their menus the beer style, the size of the glass each beer is served in, and the ABV, (alcohol by volume).

Why is the ABV important? The ABV is the measurement of the amount of alcohol within the total volume of liquid, or the strength or potency of the beer. The amount of alcohol in the beer plus the size of the glass will depend on how quickly you will feel intoxicated and be under the influence for purposes of driving.

The guidelines for drinking and driving use a standard formula for one 12-ounce beer averaging 5% ABV. Most large beer makers, such as Budweiser and Coors, use 12-ounce bottles and their ABV usually ranges from 4 to 6%.

If you drink a 12-ounce beer that is 7.5% ABV, that is 1 1/2 times that of the 5% ABV beer. If you have a pint of beer that is 16-ounces, that is 1/3 more beer than a standard serving. If you drink a beer with a higher ABV or is poured into a larger glass, your blood-alcohol content, (BAC), will increase at a rate higher than the standard guidelines. And, if you are arrested by law enforcement for DUI, you can expect your BAC will be higher than if you had a standard size beer with a standard amount of alcohol.

Keep in mind that the drinking guidelines are just that, guidelines. Many things factor into whether or not you will be under the influence such as your sex, weight, if, when and/or what you ate, some medical conditions, among others.

The best way to avoid a drunk driving arrest is simply not drink alcoholic beverages and drive. There are many alternatives to taking this risk while still enjoying your beer or other cocktail: Use Car2Go to the location and take a cab home; Take a cab in both directions and to make it cheaper, split it with friends; Use public transportation; Designate a sober driver; Or, stay where the party is until you are sober.

If you are out enjoying San Diego’s craft brews and you happen to be pulled over and arrested for drunk driving, you owe it to yourself to hire a criminal defense attorney that handles DUI matters.

(Note: Some breweries use ABW, (alcohol by weight), instead of ABV. Alcohol measured by weight instead of volume will actually be stronger. To convert the ABW to ABV, multiply the ABW by 1.25.)

The above blog article is by no means all-inclusive and is not legal advice. For information about a specific case, speak to a drunk driving attorney in your area.

Forced Blood Draws: Will San Diego Law Enforcement Get A Warrant?

May 23, 2013 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

California has an “implied consent” rule regarding chemical testing that is found in Vehicle Code Section 23612. This vehicle code section states, “Any person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purposes of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood if lawfully arrested for an alleged DUI.”

When a person is arrested for drunk driving, they are given a choice between a blood or breath test. If a person refuses to give either sample, The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will suspend or revoke a person’s driving privileges pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 13352. The period of that suspension or revocation is at least one year.

In addition to the repercussions in the administrative DMV phase of a DUI case for a refusal, there are also increased penalties in the criminal court process.

Law enforcement cannot obtain a person’s blood without consent unless they have a warrant to do so. Failure to have a warrant constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation. Regardless, San Diego and other California law enforcement agencies have been forcibly taking blood from drivers without a warrant, citing the landmark case from 1966, Schmerber v. California. In that case, the court held police can, without a warrant, forcibly obtain a person’s blood for the purpose of chemical testing to determine intoxication after a lawful arrest if the sample is taken in a reasonable, medically approved manner, there is a reasonable belief that the person is intoxicated, and there is a need for prompt testing because the person’s blood alcohol is diminishing.

However, in April 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled on this issue in Missouri v. McNeely. In this case, the Court ruled that a warrantless search of a person is reasonable only if it falls within an exception. The Court did not find any exceptions for exigency existed just because blood alcohol evidence is inherently evanescent.

Although the Court did not create a per se rule, it did state, “When officers in drunk-driving investigations can reasonably obtain a warrant before having a blood sample drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so.”

The opinion also commented how much more expeditiously warrant processing is 47 years after Schmerber, and that exigency is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Since no bright line rule was created in this opinion regarding when the police can forcibly take blood from someone who was lawfully arrested, suspected of drunk driving, this issue will remain one that is heavily litigated.

If you have had a forced blood draw without a warrant, contact a criminal defense attorney who specifically handles driving under the influence cases. If there is a valid argument that your constitutional rights have been violated, a motion to suppress this evidence may be filed and ultimately, the prosecutor may not be able to use the results against you in court.

San Diego DUI Lawyer: Why Hire One If Charged With Drunk Driving?

April 18, 2013 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

If you are arrested for driving under the influence in San Diego County, you may wonder about your options to represent yourself, ask for a public defender, or hire your own counsel. (In a past blog, “Should I hire A San Diego Drunk Driving Attorney To Handle My DUI?” these options are discuss more thoroughly.) It is highly recommended that you have a criminal defense lawyer represent your interests for any criminal matter because of the distinct advantages that are discussed below.

Many DUI defendants have never been in trouble with the law or arrested before. Often, they are confused about the process and do not understand the interaction between the DMV portion of the case and the criminal court process. A DUI defense attorney can help you navigate the system, explain the steps and procedures and help you make informed decisions about your case. This assistance makes the entire process less stressful.

Most misdemeanor drunk driving cases can be handled by a criminal defense attorney without the client being present at the DMV APS Hearing and for all court dates including the arraignment, readiness and motion hearings. (Note, it is not advisable to conduct a jury trial without the defendant’s presence.) This means the client does not miss valuable time at work. Often hearings that should take less than an hour actually require a lot more time due to the busyness of the DMV and Superior Court’s calendar.

Another advantage of hiring a criminal defense attorney that specifically handles driving under the influence cases, is the attorney will request and review the discovery. The discovery is the government’s proof that you committed a crime. Upon the review, the attorney will be able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the State’s case. The attorney can also consult with investigators and experts to see if your case can be strengthened. Once all the facts of your case are known, the DUI attorney can advise you on whether you should accept the prosecutor’s offer, file motions to dispute an issue with the evidence, or take the case to trial.

The criminal defense lawyer is trained on researching, preparing and conducting hearings, motions and trials. In addition, the lawyer can negotiate with the prosecutor to make sure you are getting the best deal possible considering the specific facts of your DUI case. A skilled DUI attorney who handles matters in San Diego is also familiar with the standard offers given in San Diego County courthouses and what judges and the prosecutors are likely to accept in exchange for a guilty plea.

Lastly, the drunk driving lawyer will educate you on process, go through all your options, and weigh the potential costs and benefits of each option; ultimately, helping you make clear decisions on how to proceed with your case.

The above blog article is by no means all-inclusive and is not legal advice. For information about a specific case, speak to a drunk driving lawyer in your area.

SD Police Officers Investigated: Possible DUI Cover Up For One Of Their Own

March 22, 2013 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

cop arrest.jpg San Diego Police Sergeant John Iammarino, Detective Daniel Caropreso, Sergeant William Brown, and Sergeant Christopher Tivanian are all assigned to desk duty as the San Diego City Attorney’s Office investigates their involvement in a drunk driving incident involving SDPD Detective Jeffrey Blackford, according to San Diego’s 10news.com.

Allegedly, on December 6th, 2012, off-duty officers of SDPD were out drinking. Before 1:00am, on December 7th, Detective Blackford drove off then spun out and hit a utility box. Within a short period of time, off-duty officers, Sergeant Iammarino and Detective Caropreso, came to save the day. Unlucky for the officers, there was video surveillance of their arrival on scene which provided a timeline to what happened, or didn’t happen, next.

It was not until about 2:15am that on-duty officers were called and Sergeant Brown and Sergeant Tivanian responded. The four officers waited until approximately 3:59am to give Blackford a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test at the scene. It is surprising that the officers conducted this test at all, since they should be well aware that this test is considered a field sobriety test and it is not required for people over 21 and not on DUI probation. The results of the PAS test were not reported.

What did these officers do from before 1:00am until just about 4:00am? Why the delay? You would expect a quick response after an officer involved car accident, wouldn’t you? There is an obvious answer rooted in California’s driving under the influence laws, and you know the San Diego Police officers are well aware of the three hour presumption in California Vehicle Code (VC) Section 23610.

Under the drunk driving statutes in the California Vehicle Code, in order for the defendant to be found guilty, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant was driving a vehicle and while driving the person was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, a drug, or a combination of both. In addition, there are rebuttal presumptions regarding being under the influence. VC Section 23610(3) states: “If there was at the time 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person’s blood, it shall be presumed that the person was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of driving.” VC Section 23152(b) states the rebuttable presumption applies if the chemical test was conducted within three hours of driving.

It seems very apparent that the officers were trying to get their fellow officer outside the presumption window before subjecting him to the PAS test and the subsequent arrest in hopes that he would either be below the legal limit of a .08% BAC and they would not to arrest him for DUI, or he would be able to rebut the presumption that he was under the influence at the time that he was actually driving.

The San Diego City Attorney has filed documents to obtain the internal investigation documents from the SDPD. The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman will continue to follow this story to see exactly what happened on the night in question.

The above blog article is by no means all-inclusive and is not legal advice. For information about a specific case, speak to a drunk driving attorney in your area.

San Diego: Under 21 And Charged With Driving While Under The Influence

February 28, 2013 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

In California, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol. Further, anyone under the legal limit must be alcohol-free when driving. This is codified in California Vehicle Code Section 23136, the Zero Tolerance Law, which states, “[I]t is unlawful for a person under the age of 21 years who has a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.01 percent or greater, as measured by a preliminary alcohol screening test or other chemical test, to drive a vehicle.”

The Zero Tolerance Law is a civil offense and is handled through the DMV. Any underage driver who is detained or arrested for drunk driving is required to submit to a preliminary alcohol screening test (PAS) or other chemical test. If the driver refuses or fails to complete the test or the blood-alcohol content (BAC) is .01% or more, the DMV will suspend or revoke the youth’s driver’s license.

If the under 21 year old driver took the PAS or other chemical test and the results were .01% or higher, their driver’s license suspension is one year. If the driver refused or failed to complete the test, the license suspension is one year for the first offense, revoked for two years for the second offense within 10 years, and revoked for three years for three or more offenses within 10 years.

The Suspension/Revocation Order and Temporary Driver License will allow the driver to continue to drive with the same privileges and restrictions as they had under their driver’s license for a period of 30 days from the date it was issued. After that 30-day period, the driver’s license is automatically suspended or revoked unless within 10 days after the date of detention or arrest the DMV is contacted to request a hearing to challenge the suspension or revocation. You may hire a San Diego criminal defense attorney to represent you and your interests at the DMV hearing. If you prevail at the hearing, the suspension or revocation will be set aside and your driving privileges are restored in full.

On the first offense, if the suspension or revocation is not challenged or if you do not prevail after the DMV hearing, but the driver completed a chemical test, the driver may apply for a critical need restriction after the 30-day suspension, under CVC 12513, 13353.8. This will only be granted if the driver can show a critical need to drive and that other transportation options are inadequate.

California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23136 does not preclude further criminal prosecution under the other driving under the influence statutes including CVC Section 23152 and 23153, which are wobblers, meaning they can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. In addition, there is another CVC section that specifically deals with under 21 drivers, CVC Section 23140. Under this section, is it an infraction for anyone under 21 years old to drive with a blood-alcohol content of .05 — .07%.

The above blog article is by no means all-inclusive and is not legal advice. For information about a specific case, speak to a drunk driving attorney in your area.

Drunk Driving Arrest, But Plead To Wet Reckless: First Conviction Program Requirements

February 25, 2013 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

A DUI arrest often results in the prosecuting authority filing official charges in the San Diego Superior Court. The most common driving under the influence charges involving an alcoholic beverage or drug, or a combination of an alcoholic beverage and a drug, does not involve an accident, personal injury or property damage, and is filed as a misdemeanor under California Vehicle Code Section 23152 (a) & (b).

Once the case is filed, the DUI defendant is given notice of an arraignment date. At the arraignment or the first hearing, (the Readiness Hearing), the defendant or his or her DUI attorney and the prosecutor will negotiate the case. If the blood or breath test was around a .10% or if the prosecuting attorney believes there are problems with their case, the offer may be for a lesser included charge called a wet reckless.

If the driving under the influence defendant wants to accept the deal and enter a guilty plea to the wet reckless, the judge will either order the 3-month First Conviction Program or the 12-hour, education only program as a condition of DUI probation. If the blood alcohol content was below a .08% or showed a positive for drugs, the 12-hour class will be ordered. If the blood alcohol was at or above a .08%, the 3-month program will be ordered.

In order to comply with the court ordered first conviction program, the defendant must attend a court approved program. These can be found on the San Diego Court’s website. This course costs $190.00 and includes:

• Six education classes, 1 class per week, 2 hours per class.

Defendant’s should be cautious with the interaction between this criminal court process and the DMV administrative process, as the DMV may require the licensee enroll in a different program to be eligible for a restricted license or to have the driver’s license reissued. The most confusing issues for DUI defendants revolve around the interaction between the DMV and the court consequences and the defendant’s driving privileges. For the most up to date information, contact a criminal defense lawyer in your area that exclusively deals with drunk driving matters.

The above blog article is by no means all-inclusive and is not legal advice. Laws may change and may not apply to your case. For the latest information or to get legal advice, speak to a DUI attorney in your area.

San Diego County 1st Drunk Driving Offense: Why The 9-Month Program?

February 8, 2013 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

In the San Diego courts, if you plead guilty or you are convicted of a first drunk driving offense, the court will order you to enroll and complete a first conviction program. There is a 3-month program and a 9-month program.

The 3-month Drunk Driving First Conviction Program is the standard program ordered by the court. However, the court will impose the enhanced 9-month program if the blood-alcohol content (or BAC) was at or above .20%. Defendants must be aware of this if they want to obtain a restricted driver’s license after the Administrative Per Se suspension imposed by the DMV. The DMV will only require enrollment in a 3-month program for the restriction; however, after the court process is complete, the defendant may have to enroll and complete the 9-month program instead.

In order to comply with the court ordered 9-month first conviction program, you must attend a court approved program. These can be found on the San Diego Court’s website. The nine month course costs $1,190.00 and includes:

Six education classes, 1 class per week, 2 hours per class;
Thirty counseling group sessions, 1 session per week, 1.5 hours per session;
Twenty face-to-face interviews, 1 bi-weekly, 20 minutes per interview; and,
Thirty-nine self-help meetings, 1 per week.

You can enroll using the DMV DUI paperwork or the court referral form. However, you want to make sure you enroll in the right program.

Failure to enroll and/or complete the ordered program by the dates set by the court will result in a probation violation. In addition, the DMV will not allow you to apply for a restricted driver’s license until you enroll and you will not be eligible to reinstate your driving privileges in full until you complete the requisite program.

The most confusing issues for DUI defendants revolve around the interaction between the DMV and the court consequences and the defendant’s driving privileges. For the most up to date information, contact a criminal defense lawyer in your area that exclusively deals with drunk driving matters.

Driving Under The Influence Charges, But I Was Not Driving

January 25, 2013 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Under the California Vehicle Code, “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 and drug, to drive a vehicle.” (See 23152 VC.)

Simply stated, in order for the defendant to be found guilty, the prosecutor must prove to a jury that the defendant was: 1.) Driving a vehicle; and 2.) Under the influence.

Often, people who are just standing by a vehicle, sitting in the driver’s seat, or sleeping in their car are charged with drunk driving. How is this legal if the officer did not actually witness driving?

According to California Penal Code Section 836, “A peace officer may arrest a person…without a warrant…whenever the following circumstances occur: (1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence…”

However, there are several exceptions to the presence requirement providing a very big hole through PC 836, allowing an officer to make an arrest for DUI even if the actual driving was not observed by the arresting officer. The exceptions include:

(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.

(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway.

(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested.

(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested.

(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested. (See VC Section 40300.5.)

But, even if the officer made a valid, warrantless arrest, the prosecutor must still prove driving to win their case. According to Mercer v. DMV, the act of driving in the drunk driving statutes requires actual volitional movement of the vehicle. However, the courts have held driving can be proven by circumstantial evidence. This is a fact-based issue and many of these cases end up in trial, leaving the jury to decide what happened.

If you have been charged with DUI in Southern California, and you were not actually driving the car or there were no witnesses to your driving, you should immediately contact a criminal defense lawyer who exclusively handles drunk driving cases to protect you and your rights.

In San Diego It’s NOT Illegal To Drink Alcohol And Drive A Vehicle!!

October 31, 2012 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

A DUI lawyer in Texas decided to advertise his drunk driving defense firm by putting a message on wristbands that were given out to bar patrons. The message read, “Drinking tonight? Know your rights.” This was followed by the DUI attorney’s telephone number. martini and keys.jpg

Although this upset Mothers Against Drunk Driving, (MADD), the Texas lawyer was correct when he said, “If you are over the age of 21 you can consume alcohol and operate a motor vehicle. You can drive as long as you are not intoxicated.”

This is also the law in California. According to California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a), “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 and drug, to drive a vehicle.”

According to the California Jury Instructions, (CALCRIM), 2110, “A person is under the influence if, as a result of drinking or consuming an alcoholic beverage and or 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.”

In addition, “The manner in which a person drives is not enough by itself to establish whether the person is or is not under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a drug or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug. However, it is a factor to be considered, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, in deciding whether the person was under the influence.”

In San Diego and across California, it is not a crime to consume an alcoholic beverage and then drive a car as long as you are not under the influence at the time that you are driving!!

If you are pulled over by law enforcement and then charged with drunk driving, you owe it to yourself to hire an exclusively DUI defense firm to represent your interests with both the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the court system. Do not delay. You only have ten days from the date of arrest to contact the DMV to request a hearing to challenge the suspension of your driving privileges.

The above blog article is by no means all-inclusive and is not legal advice. Laws may change and may not apply to your case. For the latest information or to get legal advice, speak to a DUI attorney in your area.

San Marcos Woman Found Guilty In Drunk Driving Trial

October 23, 2012 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

A Vista driving under the influence trial concluded with a finding for guilt on three counts of gross vehicle manslaughter this week, according to 10news.com.

San Marcos resident, Debbie Sumi, 36, was in a vehicle that crashed into the back of another car that was parked on the shoulder on westbound 78 near Sycamore Avenue in August 2010. Her blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, was reported as .27 and .28 and she was ejected from the car.

Escondido resident, Susana Orozco, 23, and Erica Oliva, 23, of Fallbrook, were standing on the side of the road by the parked car and were killed. The defendant’s fiancé, Larry Alvarez, 34, was partially ejected and also died at the scene.

Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is a felony. According to the California Criminal Jury Instructions, CALCRIM 590, in order for the jury to find a defendant guilty of this charge, the prosecutor must proof beyond a reasonable doubt:

The defendant drove while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and/or drug;
While driving that vehicle while under the influence, the defendant also committed a misdemeanor, infraction, or an otherwise lawful act that might cause death;
The defendant committed that misdemeanor, infraction, or otherwise lawful act with gross negligence; and,
The defendant’s grossly negligent conduct caused the death of another person.

The defense argued that Alvarez was the driver of the vehicle, not Sumi. The jury did not accept this argument and they convicted her on the three counts of gross vehicular manslaughter. She is facing up to 14 years in prison when she is sentenced on January 8th.