Archive for October, 2008

As in any criminal prosecution, Probable Cause for Sacramento DUI Arrest to stop the driver of a motor vehicle may be an issue in a drunk driving case. Lacking sufficient cause, any evidence obtained as a result of the stop – which should include all evidence except observations of driving, must be suppressed.

Assuming the existence of grounds for the stop, the prosecution must then justify the investigatory detention. Again, if there are insufficient objective and articulable facts upon which to warrant detaining the driver beyond a temporary stop, then a motion to suppress all subsequently-obtained evidence should be made. If successful, this will suppress all evidence but observations and statements made during the brief stop.

Finally, if there existed probable cause to detain the individual for a field investigation (field sobriety tests and brief questioning) there must still exist a considerably greater amount of evidence of intoxication to warrant an arrest. (There must also exist the authority to arrest, involving the question of whether the offense was committed in the officer’s presence.) Without such cause, evidence obtained after the arrest, consisting in most cases primarily of the blood-alcohol test or refusal, is subject to suppression.

In essence, this usually means in a DUI case that the prosecution must establish a considerably escalating amount of evidence at each of the three stages-stop, detention, and arrest. Lacking the sufficient quantum of evidence at any stage results in suppression of all evidence obtained thereafter.

There are, of course, thousands of federal and California cases interpreting in general terms what constitutes sufficient probable cause to justify stopping, detaining, and arresting a citizen. Certainly such authority should be used in a DUT motion to suppress. It should be clearly understood by defense counsel, however, that a “double standard” appears to exist when it comes to drunk driving situations. Put another way, both the trial and appellate courts often prove more willing to find probable cause in DUI cases than in other types of offenses.
Source

29
Oct

South California Recieves DUI Grant

   Posted by: duinick    in California DUI Law

With the help of a recently awarded grant, South Lake Tahoe police expect to ramp up drunk-driving enforcement over the coming year.

The department will have extra officers looking for intoxicated drivers at least twice a month on either Friday or Saturday nights – with more during holiday periods – over the next year, according to a statement from the police department.

Additional officers will be on the street starting this Saturday, according to the statement.

The increased DUI enforcement will be paid for through a $67,000 grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. The grant money will fund officers working overtime on DUI suppression and education programs, according to the statement.

This grant also will pay for DUI checkpoints, driver’s license checkpoints and DUI warrant-service operations, according to the statement.
Source

27
Oct

Section 23152 of Sacramento’s DUI Laws

   Posted by: duinick    in Sacramento DUI

(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.

(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by
weight, of alcohol in a person’s blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.

(c) It is unlawful for any person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to aperson who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

(d) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210. In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.

Source

Sacramento County prosecutors said today they plan to file five criminal counts against the 16-year-old youth suspected in the drunken driving death of a 58-year-old Natomas area man Friday night.

The suspect, whose name is being withheld because he is a minor, will be arraigned Thursday in juvenile court.

Deputy District Attorney Rick Lewkowitz said the teenager will face one count of gross vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol causing great bodily or death, two counts of driving while under the influence of alcohol, one count of felony hit and run and one misdemeanor count of driving without a valid license.

Aman Khanna, driving to his job as a hospital security officer, was killed in the collision Friday night around 10 p.m. at the intersection of Cottage Way and Fulton Avenue.
Source

24
Oct

Manipulating California Judges Keep There Jobs

   Posted by: duinick    in California DUI Law

California Superior Court judges convicted of DUI and attempting to use their judicial office to avoid punishment get only a reprimand.

A pair of California Superior Court judges caught in separate incidents misusing their position in an attempt to escape punishment for drunk driving will keep their jobs and continue to pass judgment on other motorists. Sonoma County Judge Elaine M. Rushing and Riverside County Judge Bernard J. Schwartz were each found to have more than double the legal limit of alcohol in their bloodstream at the time of their arrest. A commission comprised of appellate court justices found their fellow judges’ conduct worthy of only a “public censure” reprimand.

On June 21, 2005, while driving drunk, Judge Elaine M. Rushing hit and damaged a stone fence belonging to a private home at 5571 Crystal Drive in Santa Rosa. She continued for two miles before guiding her 2001 Porsche into a ditch on Riebli Road. She had a 0.20 blood alcohol level a the time.

When California Highway Patrol officers arrived on the scene, Judge Rushing told them that another woman had been behind the wheel. At other times she said a man she met at a friend’s house was driving, another woman was in the passenger seat and she was in the back seat. Her vehicle had no back seat. The unnamed man, she said, fled up the hill after the crash, taking the keys with him.

Rushing said she had been drinking “two bottles” of alcohol, which she then corrected to say, “two glasses.” When the police on the scene suspected that her story did not add up and asked her to take a sobriety test, Rushing responded, “But I’m a judge, and I told you I wasn’t the driver.” She continued to repeat that the officer should not be arresting a judge and that her husband, Conrad Rushing, was an appellate court justice as she was hauled away in handcuffs.

An earlier court sentenced Rushing to a ten-day “work release”, a 45-hour alcohol counseling program, a $1890 fine, and three years of informal probation for her DUI conviction. For misusing her office, the Commission on Judicial Performance found a “public censure” sufficient. She keeps her job as a judge.

On July 16, 2005, a Pismo Beach police officer saw Judge Bernard J. Schwartz, 45, swerving all over the road. When pulled over, Schwartz said, “Why don’t you run my license and then we can talk?” The officer asked if Schwartz was trying to say that he was a police officer. “No, I’m a judge,” Schwartz responded.

With the conversation recorded on tape, Schwartz denied being under the influence of alcohol and asked if he could just go to a hotel and leave his car. “Is this really necessary, all this stuff we have to go through?” Judge Schwartz asked.

After the officer determined the judge was drunk and began to arrest him, Schwartz said, “But you know what this is going to do? This will substantially impair my career.” The officer responded, “If I let you go, it could impair my career.” The judge continued, “I know you guys are doing your job, but this is not good for me, I’m running for election next year and this is not a good time.”

Judge Schwartz said: “There is no professional courtesy here anymore. This is [expletive]. You guys come in and appear before me.” The officer responded, “We’re treating you about as fair as we can, same as everybody else. What you are asking for is special treatment.”

Judge Schwartz told the officers that he would lose his job if convicted of driving under the influence. The Commission disagreed and let him off with a “public censure.” Judge Schwartz had already been sentenced to three years probation and fined $1,609 for the DUI conviction. Judge Schwartz at the time had a blood alcohol content of 0.18.
Source

California Drunk Driving lawyers.

24
Oct

Lindsay Lohan Being Sued Over California DUI

   Posted by: duinick    in Celebrity DUI

In July 2007 Lindsay Lohan was arrested for California DUI in LA after she jumped behind the wheel of an SUV and chased her assistant in a wild car chase following a late-night private party. The owner of the SUV and two passengers have filed charges of assault and battery against the actress over the event.

According to paperwork filed, Lohan and her assistant Taryn were arguing at the party. Taryn’s boyfriend, Dan, was behind the wheel of Dante Nigre’s 2004 Yukon Denali. He left the SUV to talk to Taryn, but she drove off and Lohan jumped into the driver’s seat in pursuit. Ronnie Blake and Jakon Sutter were in the back seat of the Denali and Nigre was in the passenger seat. At one point Blake managed to get out of the vehicle but Lohan accelerated and ran over his foot. She reportedly answered any pleas to stop with ‘hostile wrath’.

Lohan raced down Malibu’s Pacific Coast Highway, running stop signs and red lights, before coming to a stop in the parking lot of the Santa Monica Police Department. She was arrested for driving under the influence in Los Angeles after failing a field sobriety test. At the time Lohan denied driving the SUV, claiming Sutter was behind the wheel.
Source

If you are looking for a California DUI Lawyer visit visit the California DUI Lawyer Directory.

On October 01, 2008, 22-year-old  Sacramento drunk driver Robert Basinger was sentenced to 6 years in state prison for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

On Monday, March 10, 2008, at approximately 10:12 p.m., the Sacramento Police Department responded to the intersection of Folsom Boulevard and 47th Street regarding a head-on collision. Ms. Sekul, a 59-year-old school teacher, died at the scene.

During the process of this investigation it was determined that Robert Basinger was driving his 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee westbound on Folsom Blvd, at 47th Street, at speeds up to 71 miles per hour. Mary Sekul was driving her 2002 Mazda 626 eastbound on Folsom Blvd and was in the process of turning left onto 47th Street when the collision occurred.

Witnesses stated that Basinger’s vehicle was traveling at an excessive speed and did not have it’s headlights on. It was determined that Basinger’s blood alcohol content was over 3 times the legal limit (0.26%) at the time of the collision.

The speed of Basinger’s vehicle was determined through momentum calculations and data that was downloaded from the event data recorder in Basinger’s vehicle.

Due to Sekul’s vehicle turning left in front of the path of Basinger’s vehicle, a sight distance study was conducted at the scene. With limited street lighting, Basinger’s vehicle not having it’s headlights on, and the excessive speed that Basinger’s vehicle was traveling, it was nearly impossible for Sekul to have time to identify Basinger’s vehicle as a hazard and take action prior to the collision. Due to the results of this study it was determined that Basinger had forfeited his right of way.
Source

21
Oct

California Traffic Educational Program

   Posted by: duinick    in California Traffic Safety

California Traffic Safety Institute (CTSI) is a non-profit company, which has been providing staffing and monitoring services to the California Courts in the administration of individual court approved traffic violator schools since June 27, 1985.

CTSI operates under the legislative authority of CVC 11205 (1) and (m) as amended in September 1991.

21
Oct

Always Remember Your Miranda Rights

   Posted by: duinick    in Sacramento DUI

Miranda rights aret the formal advisement that you have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present before answering questions, which police must recite prior to questioning someone who is in custody. Seldom relevant to DUI cases, because the police never arrest anyone until after questioning (Have you been drinking?), after the FSTs, and maybe even after the Blood Alcohol Testing.

Of course, one does have the right not to answer questions like that one, or “How much have you had to drink? When?”, but no officer will advise you of that.

Being arrested for a California DUI is a serious matter. If you have been accused of a DUI you must seek the advice of a Sacramento DUI attorney who can get your sentence eliminated or at least reduced to a misdemeanor.

When faced with a California DUI arrest and/or conviction, there are a number of issues to consider: Will you have to serve jail time? If so, for how long? Or is probation a possibility? What will you owe in fines? Will your license be suspended, and for how long? Will you have to go to a DUI school or do community service? Here are the vehicle codes regarding a first time California DUI Conviction.

California DUI Convictions: Vehicle Code, Sections 13353, 23152, 23577, 23578.

California Criminal Status: Vehicle Code Sections 23101(a), 23152, 23550 & 40000.15.

Jail: Vehicle Code, Section 23536

California DUI Fines/Costs: Vehicle Code, Section 23536

California License Suspension: Vehicle Code, Sections 13350, 13352

Ignition Interlock Device: Vehicle Code, Section 23575

Vehicle Impound: Vehicle Code, Section 23592

California DUI School: Vehicle Code, Section 23538

California Probation: Vehicle Code, Section 23600

As I am sure you know and can see a Sacramento DUI can have unbelievable consequences attached to it. Seek the advice of a qualified California DUI Lawyer to reduce your conviction to a misdemeanor.