DUI Penalties

DUI Conviction: How Can It Impact Professional Licenses?

September 7, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

In California, many professions require a license by the State of California. When applying for or renewing a license, the applicant is usually asked if they have ever been convicted of a crime, this includes the crime of driving under the influence.

These licensing agencies are governed by the California Business and Professions Code (B&P Code). B&P Code Section 480 explains the process by which a board may deny a license to an applicant.

Under B&P Code Section 480(a)(3)(B), “The board may deny a license pursuant to this subdivision only if the crime or act is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which application is made.”
When filling out the forms, it is imperative that you are truthful because under B&P Code Section 480(c), “A board may deny a license regulated by this code on the ground that the applicant knowingly made a false statement of fact required to be revealed in the application for the license.”

If the conviction has been expunged under California Penal Code Section 1203.4, you are not relieved from the obligation of disclosing the conviction in response to any direct questions in any questionnaire or application for licensure by any state or local agency. However, you can indicate on the form that the conviction was expunged.

If you already have a license, B&P Code Section 490 provides the criteria for license suspensions and revocations. This is basically the same as B&P Code Section 480, stating: “In addition to any other action that a board is permitted to take against a licensee, a board may suspend or revoke a license on the ground that the licensee has been convicted of a crime, if the crime is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the license was issued.”

Each agency is required to have guidelines or criteria to reference when considering denying, suspending, or revoking a license. The guidelines are used to determine if the conviction is “substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the license was issued.” Therefore, the guidelines of the individual agency, which issued the license or is considering your application, should be reviewed to see if a drunk driving conviction would result in the loss of your professional license or the denial or your application.

Some agencies require licensees, such as doctors and pilots, to self report. Failure to notify the licensing agency within a specified amount of time may result in denial, suspension, or revoking of your license.

Driving Drunk With Child In Car Leads To Reckless Endangerment Charges

August 23, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

child endangerment.jpg Drunk driving charges, or OWI, (operating while intoxicated), as it is called in Illinois, were filed against a 31 year old Illinois man, according to jsonline.com. He was driving 90 mph southbound
on I-94 where the speed limit is 65 mph. Once stopped, a nine month old infant was found in the car.

The preliminary alcohol screening test, PAS, result was a .24, three times the legal limit. The driver was additionally charged with recklessly endangering the safety of a minor and operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol content with a child under 16 years old.

In California, if a person is convicted of driving under the influence and it is proven that a minor under the age of 14 was a passenger in the car at the time of the offense, the court will impose a sentencing enhancement under California Vehicle Code section 23572.

In addition to any other punishment imposed under the underlying drunk driving offense, on a first conviction the person will receive an additional 48 continuous hours in the county jail.

On a second DUI, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 10 days in the county jail.

For a third DUI, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 30 days in the county jail.

For a fourth drunk driving conviction, the punishment shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 90 days in the county jail.

This additional jail time is imposed whether or not probation is granted and no part of it may be stayed.

This enhancement does not apply if the person is also convicted of violating Penal Code section 273(a), child endangerment. Child endangerment is a “wobbler” which means it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony. In addition, this code section applies to minors under the age of 18.

Chula Vista Drunk Driving Accident Results In Prison Time

July 29, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Chula Vista resident, Angel Rodrigo Gutierrez, 23, was sentenced July 28th, for the fatal hit and run incident that occurred on Christmas Day, killing Robin Fortson, a 54 year old homeless woman. The defendant plead guilty last month to vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident. He was sentenced to six years and four months in state prison, according to 10news.com.

Gutierrez was drinking beer and celebrating Christmas when he decided to drive to get a burrito. Around 8:30 p.m., at the 1200 block of Third Avenue in Chula Vista, he struck and killed Fortson as she crossed the street. He then made a u-turn, driving by the victim, leaving the scene. His car was left in the 200 block of Moss Street and he was found around 2:40 a.m. at his home in the 300 block of Date Street.

His blood alcohol content (BAC) was measured at .29 percent, seven hours after the crash. He was subsequently arrested for drunk driving.

In California, it is illegal to operate a vehicle with a BAC of .08 percent or more under the California Vehicle Code section 23152(b). Built into that code section is a rebuttable presumption that if a chemical test was performed within three hours after driving and the result showed the person’s BAC is .08 or more, the prosecution can assume that the driver’s BAC was .08 or greater at the time of driving. This assumption can be challenged by the defense at trial.

Boating Under The Influence, Can I Get Arrested For DUI?

July 26, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

In California, if you operate a motorized boat or any watercraft while under the influence in a lake, river, or the ocean, you can be arrested and charged with a crime.

The Harbors and Navigation Code provides the statutes for boating under the influence, or BUI. The language of the code is very close in the language in the California Vehicle Code for drunk driving, (see California Vehicle Code section 23152).
drinking and boating.jpg Under the Harbors and Navigation Code section 655:

(b) No person shall operate any vessel or manipulate water skis, an aquaplane, or a similar device while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, any drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug.

(c) No person shall operate any recreational vessel or manipulate any water skis, aquaplane, or similar device if the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more in his or her blood.

(d) No person shall operate any vessel other than a recreational vessel if the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 percent or more in his or her blood.

The code does not bar the operator of the boat or the passengers from drinking or having open containers inside the vessel. However, it is illegal to operate a motorized vessel or serve as a crew member while under the influence or alcohol, a drug, or the combination of both, (see Harbors and Navigation Code section 655.4(a)).

A BUI is priorable, which means if you are charged with another DUI or BUI within ten years of the first one, you will be subject to the consequences of a second offense, which are more severe than the punishment for the first.

Misdemeanor DUI Arrest For Ditka’s Son, Charge Upgraded To Felony

May 20, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

A misdemeanor drunk driving charge was filed against Michael P. Ditka, 49, the son of former Chicago Bears Head Coach Mike Ditka, after an arrest on April 20th. However, that charge was upgraded to a felony because he has two prior DUI arrests, according to Lake County News-Sun.

Ditka was arrested in Highwood, Illinois, in 2004, and he was placed on probation. He was arrested again in Deerfield, Illinois, in 2008, and he was placed on probation after pleading guilty to reckless driving.

If convicted he faces a maximum of seven years in prison. He is currently free on bond.

If this drunk driving arrest was made in California, and the defendant only had two prior DUI convictions in the past ten years, this third DUI would only be charged as a misdemeanor, as long as it did not involve an injury accident and the driver did not commit another illegal act while driving under the influence.

Under California Vehicle Code Section 23550, if a person is convicted of drunk driving and the offense occurred within ten years of three or more separate DUI violations that resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for not less than 180 days nor more than one year, and by a fine of not less than $390 nor more than $1,000.

Forced Blood Draws In DUI Cases, Courts Deciding On The Legality

April 22, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

forced blood draw.jpg The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal heard arguments this week on whether law enforcement can forcibly draw blood from certain DUI suspects. Currently, Florida law allows forced blood draws without a search warrant in suspected drunk driving cases involving death or serious injury.

In this case, no injury or death was involved when the defendant was charged with driving under the influence. The defendant failed to keep his car in a single lane so he was stopped by Melbourne police. Law enforcement did obtain a search warrant for the blood sample.

Circuit Judge Maxwell did not allow the blood evidence into court; thereby prompting this appeal by the state. This issue has not come before any appeal court in Florida before and the ruling will impact 13 counties and become a benchmark for other judicial circuit courts in Florida.

In California, there is an implied consent law for chemical testing, Vehicle Code Section 23612. Under this statute, “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.”

Once arrested for drunk driving, the person has a choice between a blood or breath test. If a person refuses to give either sample, and they are eventually convicted of drunk driving, their penalty will be increased according to Vehicle Code Section 23577.

Can an officer force you to take a blood test if you refused to give a sample? Yes, if the following conditions are met (People v. Sugarman): 1.) The circumstances require prompt testing; 2.) The arresting officer has reasonable cause to believe the arrestee is intoxicated; and, 3.) The test is conducted in a medically approved manner incident to a lawful arrest.

So how do you defend a drunk driving case that involves a refusal? You can challenge the lawfulness of the arrest itself. The officer must have had probable cause to stop and arrest you. Also, the prosecution must prove you were the driver of the car and you were in fact under the influence. Further, the officer may not have told you that you are obligated to submit to a chemical test or the admonition was confusing.

Your drunk driving charges may be dismissed if any of the defenses above fit your case. (Note, this is not an exhaustive list of defenses.) Contact an exclusively DUI defense firm if you want more information on how to defend you matter.

San Diego Drunk Driving Crash Results in 6 Year Prison Term

March 14, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

DUI and gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated convictions resulted in a six year prison sentence for San Diego resident, Anthony Guarino, on March 11th, according to 10news.com. He was convicted of these drunk driving charges in January 2011, after his lawyers unsuccessfully argued that the accident that killed Marc Durham was actually caused by a “microsleep” episode due to his severe sleep apnea, not drunk driving.

Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for four, six, or ten years, under California Penal Code (PC) 191.5(a). If the defendant has a prior PC 191.5 conviction, or two or more prior DUI convictions, the sentencing range is fifteen years-to-life in prison. The sentence imposed depends on the specific facts of the case.

The maximum sentence for all the charges in this drunk driving case was 13 years in state prison. However, the judge considered the fact that Guarino had no prior criminal record, served 20 years in the Marine Corps, was a good family man, and had good standing in the community in giving the defendant the middle term of six years instead of the maximum penalty allowed under the law.

Ignition Interlock Devices Deter Repeat Drunk Driving Arrests

March 11, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Ignition interlock devices, or IID’s, were found to prevent repeat DUI offenders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Re-arrest rates for alcohol-impaired driving decreased by a median of 67 percent relative to drivers with suspended licenses.”

IID’s are devices that can be installed in vehicles to prevent someone from operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above a specified level. The driver blows into the machine, a breath sample is taken, and if the BAC is above the stated level, the car will not operate.

Currently, California courts may require a person convicted of a first DUI to install an ignition interlock device on any vehicle the person owns or operates, pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 23575. This penalty is more likely if the driver’s blood alcohol concentration was .15 percent or higher, if the offender had two or more prior moving violations, or if a chemical test was refused.

California is also conducting a pilot program under Vehicle Code Section 23700, which became effective July 1, 2010, in the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare only. Upon conviction of any drunk driving offense in those counties, the offender is required by the Department of Motor Vehicles, DMV, to have a certified ignition interlock device installed.

With this recent CDC study showing the effectiveness of the IID programs, you can expect the California pilot program will be expanded in the future to all California counties with the hopes of preventing repeat DUI’s.

Online Sources:

CDC Says Ignition Interlocks Work In Reducing Drunk Driving: stlamerican.com
Ignition Interlocks Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving: cdc.gov

El Cajon Sting Nabs Drivers With Suspended Licenses Due To DUI

March 3, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

La Mesa Police conducted a sting operation at the El Cajon Courthouse looking for those driving with a suspended license due to drunk driving, according to lamesa.patch.com.

Once convicted of driving under the influence, the court usually places the person on probation, their license is suspended, and they are ordered to attend a meeting that is hosted by MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The three hour sting was at the courthouse where MADD panel meetings take place.

13 drivers out of 171 that were contacted were alleged to be driving on a suspended or revoked license. They were issued a citation, their cars impounded, and a hold was placed on the vehicles.

Under Vehicle Code Section 14601.2, if you are convicted of driving with a suspended or revoked license due to a DUI, the penalty for a first offense is a mandatory minimum of 10 days in jail and a fine of $300 – $1000. The penalty for a second offense within five years is a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500 – $2000.

These stings are conducted approximated four times a year. They are funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Temecula Alleged Drunk Driving Crash Kills Daughter, Mother Had 4 Prior DUI’s in San Diego

February 1, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

San Marcos’ former resident, Karen Faye Honeycutt, 41, was charged with second-degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, drunk driving causing great bodily injury, and other crimes in connection with a crash in Temecula that killed her nine year old daughter and injured two of her sons on January 21st, 2011, according to the North County Times.

Honeycutt’s license was suspended for a previous DUI conviction at the time of this incident. She had two previous convictions for driving on a suspended license in the past two years, as reported by 10news.com.

A sentencing enhancement was added for having prior driving under the influence (DUI) convictions in San Diego County. It is alleged that she had four convictions since 1994; however, according to Vehicle Code Section 23540, the prior DUI offenses must be within ten years of this offense to be counted as a prior for purposes of sentencing. Punishment is enhanced with every prior driving under the influence charge within that ten year period.

Honeycutt is facing 22 years to life in prison if convicted as charged.