San Diego DUI Lawyers Blog

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.

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.

Sorrento Valley Drinking and Driving Ends With Driver Killed In Crash

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

San Diego motorists called the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to report a driver on southbound Interstate 5, in the Leucadia area, throwing beer cans out the window and driving erratically around 4 p.m., according to 10news.com.

The driver then headed south on Interstate 805, through Sorrento Valley. He pulled over to urinate on the side of the road and then continued driving. CHP followed as he lost control of the vehicle and rolled over. The unidentified driver was partially ejected and was pronounced dead at the scene.

In California, it is not only illegal to drive while under the influence, it is also illegal to drink any alcoholic beverage while driving a vehicle, (see California Vehicle Code section 23220). In additional, it is unlawful for a driver to have any open bottle, can, or other receptacle, containing any alcoholic beverage in his or her possession, (see California Vehicle Code section 23223, Open Container Law).

Tierrasanta Youth Involved in Alleged DUI Felony Case Pleads Not Guilty

August 15, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

San Diego resident and recent Serra High School graduate, Joseph Walsh, 18, plead not guilty to two felony drunk driving charges on August 11th, according to 10news.com.

On May 18th, Walsh was drinking beer at a friend’s home when he decided to drive to get some food. Allegedly, he was driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone when his car hit a sport utility vehicle and rolled four times. His two passengers were injured along with the driver of the SUV. He was subsequently charged with one count of DUI causing injury and one count of driving with measurable blood alcohol causing injury.

Members of the community showed up at the arraignment and wrote letters in support Walsh. He was allowed to remain free on his own recognizance and was ordered to appear at the preliminary hearing which is scheduled for August 24th.

Walsh’s blood alcohol content, or BAC, was a .19. The legal limit is .08 percent for drivers over the age of 21. Since he was only 18 at the time of the incident, he could also be charged with:

1. California Vehicle Code section 23136, the Zero Tolerance Law, a civil offense that is handled through the DMV;
2. California Vehicle Code section 23140, under 21 with a BAC of .05 – .07 percent, an infraction;
3. California Vehicle Code section 23152, driving under the influence, a misdemeanor.

San Diego Voters Opposed To Drunk Driving Checkpoints

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

state capital.jpg <a
San Diego’s Equality Alliance did a checkpoint study of over 6,000 voters in San Diego County from May 21st through June 15th, 2011, asking, “Do you think law enforcement should be able to set up checkpoints to question drivers without suspicion of wrongdoing.” Approximately 64% oppose DUI checkpoints; while only 27% are in support. Opposition is highest among the younger population, 18-24 year olds, 69%, and African-Americans, Latinos, and low income voters, 68%.

Drunk driving checkpoints are supposed to be conducted in a manner that would deter drunk driving using the criteria set out by the California Supreme Court in Ingersoll v. Palmer. (Also see previous blog entries, California’s Sobriety Checkpoint/Roadblock Criteria Part I and Part II.) However, according to the Executive Director of Equality Alliance, Andrea Guerrero, many people complain that DUI checkpoints harass, discriminate, inconvenience, and invade privacy.

10news.com reported that law enforcement agencies are currently using the checkpoints to not only deter drunk driving, but also to check on immigration and license status by targeting certain neighborhoods.

Equality Alliance is asking California lawmakers to pass legislation that would regulate DUI checkpoints for sobriety checks only. The bill comes before the Appropriations Committee, which is headed by State Senator Christine Kehoe, on August 15th.

DUI Charges After Suspect Admits To Huffing Aerosol Cans

August 8, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Drunk driving charges were brought after Christopher Jordan Johnson, 20, crashed his car into a tree in East Naples, Florida. He and his passenger, Brock Lyons, 21, admitted to huffing dust remover in aerosol cans before the crash, according to naplesnews.com. Johnson broke his right leg and hip and Lyons broke his arm and right ankle, and suffered a collapsed lung.

Painkiller DUI’s have been increasing but huffing DUI’s are still rare, according to an officer that was involved in the case.

In California, it is illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and a drug, (see Penal Code section 23152(a)). It does not matter if that drug is a prescription, an illegal substance, or a cleaning product that can be used as an inhalant, as long as the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver was under the influence for purposes of driving.

San Diego prosecutors brought charges in its first huffing drunk driving case in May 2010, according to cbs8.com, stemming from an accident that occurred on December 31, 2009.

Defendant Romeo Dumlao, Jr., 34, was accused of huffing or inhaling difluoroethane vapors from a can of computer dust remover to get high, according to 10news.com. While in Point Loma, he drove his car into another car on Sports Arena Boulevard, ultimately killing 9 year old Ashley Heffington. He plead guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in June 2010, and was sentenced to 16 years in prison in July 2010.

Pacific Beach DUI Checkpoints Not Conducted On July 4th Weekend

August 5, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Pacific Beach has hosted a drunk driving checkpoint during the July 4th weekend for the past eight years. However, the San Diego Police Department decided not to have one this year. The Pacific Beach residents are outraged by this because not only is San Diego the city with the most DUI-related arrests in the country, but Pacific Beach has the majority of those arrests.

PB Planning Committee members confronted San Diego police Officer Mark McCullough about this. He claimed the chief of police requested that the checkpoints be shared by other communities, according to 10news.com.

Instead of DUI checkpoints, San Diego Police used saturation patrols to address the drunk driving issue and alcohol-related offenses in Pacific Beach and Mission Beach this year.

San Diego DUI checkpoints are funded by grants given to the police department from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). Those funds are provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

San Diego law enforcement must use those funds to deter drunk driving throughout the city, not just in Pacific Beach and Mission Beach. Since checkpoints are intrusive and ineffective, saturation patrols, which specifically target those who are involved in alcohol-related incidents, are a much better way to use the funds and the city’s resources.

San Diego Officer Charged With DUI Commits Suicide

August 2, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Drunk driving charges were brought against San Diego Police Officer, David Hall, after he allegedly crashed his car into another on Interstate 805’s onramp from Murray Ridge Road while off duty on February 22nd. A woman in that car was injured and Hall left the scene. Police officers found him at his home and field sobriety tests were conducted. His blood alcohol content (BAC) was .32, four times the legal limit of .08. (The incident was previously posted on this blog on May 3rd and April 13th, 2011.)

On May 2nd, Hall plead not guilty to two counts of DUI causing injury and one count of felony hit and run with an allegation that his BAC was above .15. He was put on paid administrative leave from the department. If convicted, Hall faced a maximum sentence of three years and eight months in prison.

A pretrial hearing was scheduled for Thursday. Apparently, the stress was too much for Hall to bear. On August 1st, he took his own life with one gunshot wound to his head. He was found by his wife in the backyard of their Clairmont Mesa home around 10 a.m., according to latimes.com.

SDPD Chief, William Lansdowne admitted the department was aware of the stress Hall was under after the drunk driving arrest, according to signonsandiego.com. He was utilizing the department’s Wellness Unit; his last appointment was the day before he took his life.

Criminal allegations, facing jail or prison time, and the possibility of losing your job can cause great stress for criminal defendants. If you have been charged with a crime and the stress has become unbearable, consider seeking help from mental health professionals.

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.