DUI Penalties

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.

SCRAM

April 26, 2016 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

If you are arrested for drunk driving in San Diego, you may be ordered to SCRAM, (which stands for “Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor”). The judge may include this in your sentence after you enter a guilty plea, after a conviction after a trial, or, any time before the conclusion of the case if the judge is concerned about public safety, recidivism, or your continued alcohol use. Typically, repeat offenders and cases involving high blood-alcohol content and severe accidents are ordered to abstain from all alcohol use and are often monitored by this program.

SCRAM is a bracelet that is worn on the ankle, 24/7, for the period of time ordered by the judge. You are also given a base station to plug into your landline telephone or internet router at home or work, which stores and transmits the data collected by the bracelet.

The offender is required to pay $100 to install the device, plus a daily fee of $15, paid two weeks in advance. This can be scaled from $7 t0 $15, depending on the offender’s ability to pay. They accept cash, checks, money orders, and all major credit cards.

CA DMV Study Shows IID Pilot Program Not A General Drunk Driving Deterrent

January 19, 2015 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Currently, there are four counties in California that are participating in the ignition interlock device, IID, pilot program: Los Angeles, Alameda, Tulare, and Sacramento, per California Vehicle Code Section 23700. The pilot program requires all driving under the influence, DUI, defendants, including first time offenders, to pay for, install, and then maintain the IID for a period of time as determined by the number of drunk driving convictions the individual has.

An IID is a breathalyzer instrument that is professionally installed in the defendant’s vehicle by a court-approved company. The driver must blow into the device, providing an alcohol-free sample. If alcohol is detected, the car will not start. Once started, the driver will be prompted to give another sample within 15-minutes of driving and then again about every 45-minutes. If alcohol is detected during a random sample, the car will stall and become inoperable. These are referred to as “sample failures” and are reported to the court.

Recently, the Department of Motor Vehicles released its report to the Legislature of the State of California of its findings regarding the “General Deterrent Evaluation of the Ignition Interlock Pilot Program in California.” According to this sixty page report, the DMV study found “the IID pilot program was not associated with a reduction in the number of first-time and repeat DUI convictions in the pilot counties. In other words, no evidence was found that the pilot program has a general deterrence effect.” (See “Report Documentation Page.”) Continue reading ›

San Diego County Going To Require IID’s For All DUI Convictions?

December 30, 2014 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

California State Senator Jerry Hill plans on introducing a bill on Monday, January 5th, that would require all defendants who are convicted of drunk driving to install ignition interlock devices, (IID’s). A first DUI conviction would result in a 6-month requirement. A second driving under the influence conviction would result in a 1-year IID requirement. (See news article on CBS.)

What is an IID? It is a breathalyzer instrument that is professionally installed in your vehicle by a court-approved company. The driver must blow into the device, providing an alcohol-free sample, in order for the car to start. If alcohol is detected, the car will not start. Once started, the driver will be prompted to give another sample within 15-minutes of driving and then again about every 45-minutes. If alcohol is detected during these random samples, the car will stall and become inoperable. Sample “failures” are reported to the court.

Currently, there are four counties in California that are participating in an IID pilot program: Los Angeles, Alameda, Tulare, and Sacramento, (see CA Vehicle Code Section 23700). According to this statute, first time DUI defendants must install an IID for a period of 5-months in any car that they operate or drive. On a second conviction, the term is extended to 1-year. On a third conviction, the device is required for 2-years. On the third or subsequent DUI conviction, the IID is ordered for 3-years. Continue reading ›

San Diego DUI Sentencing Alternative: CPAC

December 3, 2014 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

In San Diego criminal courts, the judge sentences DUI defendants. For first time misdemeanor drunk driving offenders, that sentence usually does not include any jail time other than what was served at the time of the arrest. As for subsequent DUI’s, in custody time is very likely to be ordered.

However, San Diego has a program called CPAC, County Parole and Alternative Custody, that is run by the Sheriff’s Department. This is basically an electronic home confinement program where you wear a bracelet that uses GPS to track your whereabouts. It also has the ability to screen for alcohol use.

You cannot prequalify for this program. If your sentence included a jail term, the judge may authorize you to be screened for this program. The judge’s authorization must be on the Court Minute Order for the Sheriff to accept your application to start the screening process to see if you qualify for the program. Continue reading ›

Drunk Driving & Refusing To Submit A Chemical Test, Criminal Ramifications

September 23, 2014 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

California has an implied consent law, which requires a driver that is lawfully arrested, suspected of driving under the influence, to submit to a chemical test. The tests that are typically offered for suspected alcohol intoxication is a breath and blood test. A blood test is usually offered for suspected drug intoxication. Occasionally, a urine test may be offered if it believed the driver is under the influence of drugs and is unable to give a blood sample for medical reasons, or the blood and /or breath test is not available.

The officer is only required to give you one chance to complete the test. If you refuse, but then change your mind, or you fail to pick one of the tests offered, that can be considered a refusal.

If you refuse, the police may forcibly draw your blood if they obtain a warrant or they can show exigent circumstances that justify the blood draw without a warrant. In addition to the administrative penalties through the DMV regarding your privilege to drive, there are also enhanced criminal penalties for refusing to submit to a chemical test.

For a first DUI with a refusal enhancement, an additional 48 hours in jail will be added to the penalty. In addition, instead of the 3-month First Conviction Program, the 9-month program will be ordered. With a second drunk driving conviction within 10-years, 96 hours in jail is added. For a third driving under the influence conviction within 10-years, 10 additional days in jail are added to the sentence. And, lastly, for a fourth or subsequent DUI conviction within 10-years with a refusal, the enhanced penalty is 18 additional days in jail. Continue reading ›

Biking: A Good Alternative To Driving My Car While Under The Influence?

June 19, 2014 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Summer 2014 is here! The summer brings BBQ’s, parties, boating, beach time, Sunday Fundays, cold beers and margaritas, and lots of fun times. It is important, however, to plan ahead so your fun does not end with criminal charges.

Often, people use their bikes as transportation when they know they are going to be drinking alcoholic beverages thinking it will prevent them being arrested for drunk driving. But, they are still at risk of being arrested and here is the law.

If the bike can be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, such as a motor bike, you can be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both. All the penalties of a standard drunk driving offense involving an automobile would apply. However, if your bike is self-propelled, you will not be subjected to the DUI statutes. Instead, you can be charged with BUI or CUI, biking or cycling under the influence, under California Vehicle Code Section 21200.5.

This code section specifically states: “…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…”

The biggest difference between a DUI and a BUI is that there is no specific blood alcohol limit in a BUI case. In a criminal DUI matter, the “Per Se” limit is a .08. Also, the penalty for a conviction for BUI is a fine of not more than $250.00, which is a substantially lesser penalty than in a standard DUI case.

Riding a bicycle while under the influence is a hard case for the prosecutor. These cases can be attacked on several fronts. If you have been arrested and/or charged with riding a bicycle while under the influence, you deserve to hire the Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman, an exclusively DUI defense firm that will aggressively defend your case.

SR-22: What Is It & Why Do I Need It After My License Was Suspended?

March 31, 2014 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

An SR-22 is a certificate of insurance. It is proof that you have met the state’s minimum requirements for liability car insurance. This form is obtained from your insurance company and they file it with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, to show proof of financial responsibility.

The DMV may require an SR-22 when you reinstate your driving privileges after a suspension or revocation. This happens after a DUI arrest if you lose the Administrative Per Se (APS) Hearing challenging the license suspension, you do not request a hearing and your driving privileges were automatically suspended, or you were convicted or plead guilty to a drunk driving charge and the sentencing included a suspension or revocation.

After a specific amount of time, (depending on certain factors), you may be eligible for a restricted driver’s license. The restricted license allows you to drive to, from, and during the course of your employment and to and from the DUI program. The DMV will not issue the restricted license unless you register in and attend the requisite drunk driving program, pay the reissuance and restriction fee, and file an SR-22 with the department. The SR-22 must be maintained for a period of three years after a DUI suspension.

Most people request the SR-22 from the insurance company that is currently insuring them. However, that is not recommended. Insurance companies have millions of customers and it is not cost effective for them to run a record check on each and every customer. Instead, they rely on self reporting. Once you tell your insurance carrier that you need an SR-22, they will check your DMV record, looking for things like a DUI.

In many cases, the insurance company will not insure a driver with a DUI on their record, so they get dropped and the policy is cancelled. Other companies will issue the SR-22 but then raise the premium, as you may be deemed to be a “high risk driver.”

If you are dropped or you fail to maintain the SR-22 for the entire three years, the insurance company is required to notify the DMV. Your driving privilege will again be suspended unless you immediately obtain another policy.

The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman recommends you do not self report. Instead, we provide our clients with the names of insurance brokers that specifically deal with drivers with driving under the influence matters. Through these brokers, the licensee can obtain a supplemental insurance policy and an SR-22; thus, maintaining their current car insurance. And, in the event that the original insurance carrier finds out about the DUI and raises the premium or cancels the policy, the brokers will help the client find another insurance company that will insure them regardless of their DUI arrest.

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.

Penalty Enhancements: What Are They & How Do They Affect My DUI Case?

March 7, 2014 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

In San Diego County and throughout California, driving under the influence penalties are getting harsher. In most cases, alleged DUI incidents are charged with two penal code violations:

Driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both; and,
Driving with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) at or above .08 percent.

Along with these (or other possible) charges, the prosecuting agency may also add penalty enhancements to the complaint. Just as it sounds, if alleged, these can increase the penalty imposed if a person pleads guilty or is found guilty of the enhancement.

Typical enhancements include prior convictions within the past 10 years, high BAC, refusals, speeding, child endangerment, and accidents/injuries.

If a person was convicted or pleaded guilty to a DUI or a wet reckless within 10 years of the current offense, the sentence for the new drunk driving matter will be increased in the criminal court proceeding. Also, the DMV will suspend the driving privileges for a longer period and the driver will have to attend a longer DUI program. Each prior offense will increase the penalties. If the person has 3 prior DUI offenses on their record, the 4th could be charged as a felony, thus exposing him or her to a prison sentence. This is true even if none of the drunk driving offenses involved an accident or any injuries.

If a person’s blood-alcohol content is proven to be .15% or more or .20 or more, additional penalties may be imposed. On a first DUI with a .20 BAC, the 9-month alcohol program will be ordered instead of the 3-month program. In addition, the judge may also impose additional terms such as mandatory AA meetings, public work service, or an ignition interlock device.

If the driver refused to do a chemical test after a lawful arrest, additional administrative penalties are imposed through the DMV. For instance, on a first DUI with a refusal, the DMV will suspend the driving privileges for one year, instead of the usual 4 months. Plus the court will use this to enhance the sentence, including 2 days of mandatory jail time.

If a person was driving 20+ mph over the speed limit on surface streets or 30+ mph over the speed limit on the highway, the enhancement is called reckless driving. Under California Vehicle Code Section 23582, the judge will order a mandatory 60 days in custody in addition to all the other penalties imposed for the DUI.

If the DUI driver had a minor under the age of 14 in the car when the offense occurred, they will likely be charged with the child endangerment enhancement. The court may enhance the drunk driving sentence by adding an additional 10 days of jail time.

If an accident was involved and there was property damage, the court will order restitution. If a person was injured in the accident, the charges will often be felony DUI or a misdemeanor DUI with injuries, both will include enhanced penalties.

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.

California Bartenders Liable For DUI Injuries & Deaths?

February 13, 2014 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

An alleged driving while intoxicated accident killed six people after a “girls night out” in eastern Los Angeles County, California, on February 9th, 2014. Horrific events such as this strikes up the debate about whether owners and/or bartenders of bars and restaurants should be held liable when their patrons consume alcoholic beverages, drive, and then injure or kill someone.

Olivia Carolee Culbreath, a 21-year-old Californian, was charged with six counts of murder, (felony drunk driving and felony manslaughter), but has yet to be arraigned. At 4:45 a.m., she was driving a red, Chevrolet Camaro the wrong way on westbound 60, the Pomona Freeway, in Diamond Bar, when she hit a Ford Explorer, killing all four in the Explorer. In addition, two of Culbreath’s passengers, her sister and a friend, both died. The defendant remains hospitalized but held on $6 million bail. As though this case is not sad enough, she is a mother of a new born and is now facing life in prison.

Culbreath had a prior DUI conviction when she was just 17, and her driving privilege restrictions from that incident were lifted just days before this catastrophic incident.

So can the owners and/or bartenders of the bars or restaurants where Culbreath was served be financially or criminally liable for this accident? The answer is found in the “dram shop laws,” which in California are found in the Civil Code Section 1714.

This law actually protects bar owners and bartenders from civil liability if their patron drives while intoxicated and injures or kills someone. The code specifically states, “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person…the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injures resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.” Section (c) extends this provision to a social host.

The exception is found in Section (d), which states an adult who furnishes alcohol to a person that s/he knows or should have known is under 21, may be found to be the proximate cause of any resulting injuries or death.

However, the bartender can be charged with a misdemeanor under California Business and Professions Code Section 25602(a), which states, “Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.”