Defending DUI Cases

Is Drunk Driving A Misdemeanor Or Felony In California?

October 28, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

The majority of all DUI cases in California are filed as misdemeanors. Some are filed as felonies.

What is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony? The California Penal Code Section 17 states, “A felony is a crime which is punishable with death or by imprisonment in the state prison. Every other crime or public offense is a misdemeanor except those offenses that are classified as infractions.”

There is more of a stigma and the punishment is greater for those accused and convicted of a felony rather than a misdemeanor. Usually felony punishments require a sentence of a year or more in a state prison. Misdemeanor convictions carry the possibility of a year or less in the county jail.

As for drunk driving cases, most often first, second, and third DUI’s are charged as misdemeanors. However, if there are aggravating factors, the charges may be raised to a felony. For instance, if the DUI caused injury or death of another, the defendant has three or more prior DUI’s or wet reckless convictions within ten years, or the defendant has a prior felony DUI conviction, the new case will often be charged as a felony.

If the DUI caused injury or death to another, the driver may be charged with either: 1.) Driving under the influence causing injury under California Vehicle Code Section 23153; 2.) Vehicular manslaughter under California Penal Code Sections 191.5 and 192; or, 3.) Murder under Penal Code Section 187. The charges usually depend on the seriousness of the injury.

If the defendant has been convicted of three or more DUI’s and/or wet reckless offenses, the new case may be charged as a felony. This would include any out-of-state convictions that are equivalent to a California DUI.

If the defendant has a prior felony drunk driving conviction and then picks up another DUI, regardless that it would normally be charged as a misdemeanor, the new case can be charged as a felony.

Cases which may be charged as a misdemeanor or felony are called “wobblers.” The prosecutor has discretion to decide how to charge a particular matter; however, an experienced drunk driving defense attorney may be able to negotiate a plea agreement where the defendant pleads to a reduced misdemeanor charge. If the prosecutor refuses such an offer, a skilled DUI defense attorney may motion the trial court to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor.

Driving Under The Influence: What The Prosecutor Must Prove

October 19, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

You have been charged with drunk driving under California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) or 23152(b) . In order for the jury to find you guilty, the prosecution has the burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under 23152(a), driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, a drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug, the state must prove that you drove a vehicle and when you drove, you were under the influence.

Under 23152(b), driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more, the state must prove that you drove a vehicle and when you drove, your blood alcohol level was 0.08 percent or more by weight.

In Louisiana, a man was arrested for drunk driving after he drove a lawn mower on northbound LA Highway 1, just south of Lockport, according to wdsu.com. He was driving with a long line of cars behind him as he swerved into the southbound lanes. An officer pulled him over and smelled alcohol on his breath. His speech was slurred and he allegedly could not complete the field sobriety tests. His blood-alcohol concentration, BAC, was estimated at .312 percent. He was arrested for DWI, driving while intoxicated, which is Louisiana’s version of California’s DUI laws.

So, is this a lawful arrest for drunk driving if this happened in San Diego County or anywhere in California? Assuming the facts in the article to be true and not having any discovery in the matter to review, the general answer is yes.

The courts have found that the defendant must have been driving which requires any volitional movement of the vehicle, (See Mercer v. DMV). The vehicle code describes a vehicle as a “device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device move exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.” Note that even though the vehicle code usually applies to “highways” under VC 23100, drunk driving laws may even apply to private property.

So, for the Louisiana case, the defendant was driving a lawn mower, powered by a gas motor, on a public roadway. Allegedly, he had a BAC over a .08, therefore, his arrest for drunk driving was lawful.

BAC: What Is It And How Does It Affect My DUI Case?

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

.08.jpg BAC is an acronym that stands for blood alcohol content or blood alcohol concentration. It is the percentage of alcohol that is in your blood at the time of the test. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the higher your BAC, the more impaired you are.

In California, it is illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or a combination of both. Further, it is unlawful to drive a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration at or above a .08 percent. (See California Vehicle Code Sections 23152(a) & (b).)

Blood alcohol concentration is at issue in almost every drunk driving case involving alcohol. Within the vehicle code there is a rebuttable presumption. If the driver took a chemical test within three hours of driving, and the result of that test is a .08 percent or more, it is presumed the person had a BAC at or above a .08 at the time of driving. Because this is a rebuttable presumption, the defense can attack this at trial during cross examination of the prosecution’s experts or with a defense expert.

Even if the driver did not exhibit any signs of impairment, having a BAC of a .08 or more at the time of driving is enough for the state to file charges against you.

If your BAC is under a .08, you can still be charged with driving under the influence if you exhibited signs of impairment while driving or if the officer determined that you failed the field sobriety tests (SFST’s).

Blood alcohol content is usually tested by breath, blood, or urine samples. The officer must have probable cause to arrest you before administering such tests. (Note: The breath test mentioned here is not the PAS, or preliminary alcohol screening test, used in the field.) As a licensed driver, you have given implied consent to such tests; this means, if you are arrested for DUI, you must give one of the samples.

A breath test is most favored by law enforcement because it gives the result quickly and no sample is saved for retesting. The breath test machine is very sensitive and many things may skew the results. For instance, the machine may not have been working properly when the test was completed or mouth alcohol may have been present in the sample. Both of these can artificially elevate the results.

The blood test is done by a qualified medical professional and the results are not immediately available. This is often considered the most accurate test. However, a byproduct of blood breaking down is alcohol. Therefore, if the preservative is not thoroughly mixed through the vial of blood, the test results will be inaccurate with the result showing an inflated number.

If you are arrested for drunk driving, you owe it to yourself to hire an exclusively DUI defense firm that is familiar with all the possible defenses in your case. The BAC result is only an estimate, and it alone does not accurately determine if you are under the influence for purposes of driving. It is a tool used by the prosecutor to determine how to charge and pursue your case. A good defense looks at all the facts, not just the test result provided by the state.

Do not just plead guilty because your BAC was a .08 percent or higher. There may still be defenses in your case that can lead to reduced charges with less punishment, or even a dismissal!

The above blog entry is by no means all-inclusive and is not intended to be legal advice. To get legal advice on your particular matter, speak to a DUI attorney.

Drunk Driving Defendant Has A Right To Confront Analyst That Tested Blood

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

Alleged drunk driver, Donald Bullcoming, was involved in a vehicle accident in New Mexico in August 2005. The other party believed he observed signs that Bullcoming was intoxicated so he called the police. Bullcoming left the scene but was later apprehended by police. He failed the field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence. He refused to provide a breath sample, so a warrant was served to take a blood sample.

The blood sample was sent to the New Mexico Department of Health, Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) to determine Bullcoming’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC). A gas chromatograph machine was used to test the blood sample and the test was performed by Curtis Caylor, a SLD Forensic Analyst. He then certified the test results in a “Report of Blood Alcohol Analysis” form, which showed the result to be a .21.

At trial, the prosecutor did not call Caylor to testify. Instead the government attempted to introduce Caylor’s findings as a “business record” during the testimony of Gerasimos Razatos, another SLD scientist. Razatos did not observe or review Caylor’s analysis.

Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the analyst’s findings without his testimony at trial, stating the introduction of the report would violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” (Confrontation Clause).

The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the report as a business record. Bullcoming was convicted and appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction stating the report was “non-testimonial and prepared routinely with guarantees of trustworthiness.”

The case was taken to the US Supreme Court which ruled in Bullcoming v. New Mexico that the Confrontation Clause requires the scientist that performed the test testify at trial unless the scientist is unavailable at trial and the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine that scientist before trial.

While this case was being appealed, the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. In that case, the court admitted affidavits that reflected the results of forensic analysis that showed the material seized from the defendant was cocaine. The court found in that case that the affidavits were “testimonial, rendering the affiants ‘witnesses’ subject to the defendant’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.”

These cases are expanding the Crawford v. Washington case, where the court held, “Where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.”

Drunk Driving And It’s Effects On A Pilot’s License

September 13, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Driving under the influence charges can pose a threat to your livelihood. If your profession, business, or service requires you to have a state license, a criminal conviction may impact obtaining or renewing your license.

If you are a pilot, there are stringent rules and procedures that must be followed if you are arrested for DUI. A conviction or motor vehicle action (MVA) may result in sanctions against you, so you need to seek legal counsel immediately to know and understand your rights and responsibilities.

The Federal Aviation Administration is governed by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) which are found under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 14 CFR Section 61.15 deals with alcohol or drug offenses, not involving the use or operation of an aircraft, and the effects on a pilot’s license.

The pilot has 60 days from the effective date of the administrative action, (driver license suspension, revocation, or cancellation), or conviction to report the MVA to the FAA. Notification must be done in writing and not over the phone. The FAA provides a standard “Notification Letter” on their website.

Each event, conviction, or administrative action must be reported. This means that one incident that leads to an administrative action and a conviction requires two notifications to the FAA. Even though two notification letters are sent, it will be deemed as one alcohol-related event for investigation purposes.

The reporting requirements for a MVA does not include a conviction for reckless, careless, or negligent driving, but it does include any administrative action. However, arrests, administrative actions, and convictions are reportable under the airman application for a medical certificate.

Once a MVA is reported, an investigation will be initiated. Investigators will ensure that the MVA was timely reported and that no other reportable actions were involved. If the MVA is reported after the required 60 days, but before the FAA discovers the MVA, that will be considered a mitigating factor in determining the sanction. Failure to notify the FAA within the 60 days may result in the denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued for up to one year after the date of the MVA or a suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued.

Due to a provision in the “Application for Airmen Medical” form 8500-8, the pilot gives consent for the National Driver Register, or NDR, to release the pilot’s driving record to the FAA. So eventually, the FAA will find out about MVA’s regardless of the pilot reporting it on their own.

If the FAA finds out about the MVA and it was not self reported, a formal investigation will be initiated. The pilot will be given a Letter of Investigation with an opportunity to respond.

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.

Talmadge DUI Car Wreck Leaves 4 Year Old Injured, Bail Set At $100,000

August 28, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

bail bond.jpg San Diego resident, Albert Pruitt, 27, was allegedly driving under the influence when he crashed his Ford Explorer on August 27th, at 7:00 a.m., according to 10news.com. Pruitt was northbound on Aldine Drive near Monroe Avenue when he hit the curb, lost control, and rolled his vehicle.

Two children, ages 2 and 4, were in the back seat. The 2 year old was in a booster seat and was uninjured. The 4 year old was restrained by an adult seatbelt which did not hold her. She was ejected from the vehicle. Her injuries are not known.

Pruitt is being held in the San Diego Central Jail with bail set $100,000.

Under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, Article I, Section 12, excessive bail shall not be required.

Bail is a sum of money that is paid to the court in exchange for the release of the accused before trial. This money is used as a guarantee that the accused will appear in court. If the defendant fails to appear, the money is forfeited and a bench warrant is usually issued for the arrest of the accused.

A bail bond is purchased from a bail bondsman. The fee of the bond is usually 10% of the bail amount. The bond document is then provided to the court in lieu of the bail money. Once the document is signed by the accused, he or she is released from jail on the promise that they will appear in court. Again, if the defendant fails to appear, the bail bond may be forfeited.

In San Diego, the courts use the San Diego Bail Schedule to determine the starting point for the bail amount that the judge will impose. The judge also will consider other factors to determine if the bail should be reduced or increased, (Penal Code section 1275). Such factors include: Good standing in the community; employment; homeownership; criminal record; seriousness of the crime; probability that defendant will show up at court hearings and trial; dangers that the accused poses to the community; and, family and friend’s presence in court.

Once bail is set, a motion may be brought requesting that the judge lower the bail amount or release the defendant on his or her own recognizance, (O.R. Release). Again, the court will consider the same factors in determining to grant such a motion.

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.

Vista Judge Rules Escondido DUI Checkpoint Case To Go To Trial

July 18, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

A Vista judge denied the motion to exclude evidence against two men who were passing through a drunk driving checkpoint and refused to unroll their window, which prompted an Escondido officer to break his window and make an arrest for resisting an officer.

The North County Times reported that Angel Navarrete and his passenger, Daniel Alfaro, drove through a sobriety checkpoint on February 11th, 2011, around 7:30 p.m., on East Valley Parkway and Juniper Street. Navarrete refused to roll his window all the way down as he video recorded the police response. His intention was to challenge the Escondido checkpoint and was totally sober while confronting the officers.

The motion was heard on July 8th, in front of Judge Robert Kearney. The attorneys for the men argued that the arrest was illegal because drivers are not required by law to roll down their window at a checkpoint and Navarrete’s window was unrolled enough for the officer to conduct an investigation. They also pointed out that the proper procedures for a checkpoint were not followed in this case. The judge disagreed and denied the motion. The trial is set for August 30th.

A defendant may motion the court to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, if the search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable. Under People v. Williams, a warrantless search or arrest is presumptively illegal. When the question of the legality of an arrest or a search or seizure is raised, the defendant makes a prima facie case of illegality where the arrest, search, or seizure was accomplished without a warrant, then the burden rests upon the prosecution to show proper justification for the arrest, search, or seizure.

If the court finds the prosecution failed to meet their burden, the defense motion will be granted. The prosecution will then decide if it has enough evidence that is admissible to proceed with the matter. Often cases are dismissed or lesser charges with lesser penalties are offered.

Note: This is a follow-up story to one previously published in this blog on May 6th, 2011, (see “Escondido Sobriety Checkpoint Challenged“).

Drunk Driver Avoids Mandatory Prison Term As Prosecutor Fails To Prove Prior DUI’s

June 30, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

An alleged five-time drunk driver avoided the mandatory two year prison sentence, according to thesunchronical.com. Brian Hand, 55, of New Hampshire, was found guilty of DUI in a Attleboro District Court in Massachusetts last week. However, the jury did not hear evidence regarding the defendant’s alleged priors.

In a hearing on Monday, the judge ruled the prosecutors failed to prove the defendant was the person in some of the Registry of Motor Vehicle documents that were presented to the court and they lacked proper certification. Hand allegedly had two prior DUI convictions in New Hampshire and two others in Massachusetts before this current conviction. The court found that only two prior driving under the influence convictions were proved.

The prosecutor asked for the maximum 2 1/2 year jail term but instead Hand was ordered to serve only six months in jail, with the remaining 2 years suspended for 3 years of probation.

In every criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove each element of each charged crime and any special allegations or enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt, (see California Criminal Jury Instructions, CALCRIM, 103). If they fail to do so, the jury/court must find the defendant not guilty.

Because the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, the defendant is not required to prove their innocence. This right is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the defense does not have to cross examine witnesses, call any of their own witnesses, or present any evidence. All the defendant has to do is argue that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the trier of fact finds that the burden has not been met, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal under California Penal Code Section 1096.