San Diego DUI Lawyers Blog

Drunk Driving Checkpoint Apps Banned By Apple

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

DUI checkpoints have been publically announced on apps available for Apple, Google, and RIM (Blackberry) cell phones. In a prior drunk driving blog posting, we announced that some U.S. Senators and State Attorney Generals have asked these companies to stop publishing this information to the public.

While Google and RIM’s guidelines remain unchanged, Apple recently announced new App Store Review Guidelines for their iOS-based devices, according to cnet.com. Section 22.8 specifically states “apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected.”

The ban only covers those checkpoints that are unpublished by law enforcement. In California you can search the law enforcement websites to find out when and where checkpoints will be conducted. If you want to know if there is a DUI checkpoint scheduled in San Diego and you don’t have an app for that on your cell phone, check the San Diego Police Department, the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, CHP, and other local law enforcement websites such as El Cajon Police, Chula Vista Police, National City Police, and Oceanside Police.

DUI Breath Test Machine, The Intoxilyzer 8000, Challenged In Court

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

Intoxilyzer 8000.jpg San Diego Police Department uses the Intoxilyzer 8000 to test the breath of suspected drunk drivers after they have been arrested. Not only are these tests used in San Diego and in other cities across California, but in other states such as Arizona, Florida, and Ohio.

Ohio is now challenging the admissibility of the results of the Intoxilyzer 8000 in an Athens County Municipal Court, according to athensnews.com. An evidentiary hearing is being held in one case to determine if the machine’s results are accurate, reliable, and therefore admissible.

Thomas E. Workman, a Massachusetts attorney who also has a master’s degree in electrical engineering, testified at the hearing. He said the data suggested some officers may be ignoring repeated failure results that should indicate they need to pull the machine out of service. Instead they are doing multiple tests until they get usable results.

He also suggested that the machine’s design and components make it more prone than other testers to error. It may misreport something else as alcohol, making the test results higher than the actual blood alcohol content of the subject. Heat, humidity, and radio interference can also affect the accuracy.

If the results of the Intoxilyzer 8000 are admitted into evidence and they are inaccurate unjust drunk driving convictions may result. If the Ohio courts determine that the Intoxilyzer 8000 test results are inaccurate, unreliable, and not inadmissible, other states such as California should also challenge the admissibility of these results.

San Diego Kicks Off Summer With Drunk Driving Enforcement

May 31, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

The Imperial Beach Patch reported that the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, California Highway Patrol, and the San Diego Police Department increased their efforts to arrest those suspected of drunk driving this past Memorial Day weekend.
On Friday night there were DUI saturation patrols in Poway, Oceanside, Escondido and San Diego. Checkpoints were also set up in San Marcos and Imperial Beach. Four drivers at each checkpoint were arrested for suspicion of drunken driving.

Saturation patrols continued on Saturday and Sunday night in Santee, Lemon Grove, San Diego and Oceanside. Another DUI checkpoint was conducted in Lemon Grove on Sunday which resulted in just 2 drunk driving arrests, according to kusi.com.

According to signonsandiego.com and CHP statistics only, drunk driving arrests were down for the holiday weekend in California by 13 percent; however San Diego County’s numbers increased by 10 percent.

The nctimes.com reported that 14 San Diego County law enforcement agencies arrested 129 people on suspicion of drunken driving Friday and Saturday which was 16 less than during the same period last Memorial Day weekend.

DUI Charges NOT To Be Filed Against A California Vice Mayor

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

The District Attorney’s Office decided not to file drunk driving charges against the San Carlos Vice Mayor, Andy Klein, according to ktvu.com.

Klein was sitting in his car on the shoulder of the Edgewood Road exit off Interstate 280 talking on his phone when a San Mateo County Sheriff’s deputy stopped to see if his car was disabled. The deputy suspected Klein was under the influence. Field sobriety tests (FST’s) were performed at the scene and Klein was subsequently arrested. He then provided a blood sample which later came back with a .07 blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, result.

The legal limit in California is a .08 BAC. Vehicle Code (VC) Section 23152(a) does not mention the .08 BAC. It merely states: “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.”

The statute also creates a rebuttable presumption that the defendant was not under the influence if his or her blood alcohol level was less than 0.05 percent, (see People v. Gallardo.)

So to be convicted of the (a) section, the prosecution only has to prove that the defendant drove a vehicle and at the time of driving the defendant was under the influence.

The jury instructions, CALCRIM 2110, state that a person is under the influence if his or her mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances. The manner in which a person drives is not enough by itself to establish whether the person is or is not under the influence; however, it is a factor to be considered, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, in deciding whether the person was under the influence.

In this case, even though Klein’s BAC was a .07, the District Attorney could have decided to prosecute under VC Section 23152(a). Apparently, the DA did not think there was enough evidence to support the theory that Klein was under the influence and the charges were dropped.

[This is a follow-up to the initial story that was posted on May 17th, 2011, entitled “Drunk Driving Charges For Vice Mayor of San Carlos“.]

Biking While Intoxicated, Can I Get Arrested For Drunk Driving?

May 25, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

bike and beer.jpg While intoxicated, Richard W. Walker, 20, was riding a dirt bike in the street in Channahon, Illinois. He was arrested and charged with DUI and other crimes, according to heraldnews.suntimes.com.

In California, it is illegal to be under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug, or a combination of both, while driving a vehicle. The question is whether a dirt bike is considered a vehicle for purposes of applying the DUI sections of the Vehicle Code.

California Vehicle Code Section 670 states: “A ‘vehicle’ is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.”

California courts have interpreted this code section in Tomson v. Kischassey, bicycles without motors are not considered vehicles, and in People v. Jordan, bicycles with motors are considered vehicles under the Vehicle Code.

In this case, since the dirt bike had a motor, it would be considered a vehicle and the defendant would be charged with drunk driving. If the bicycle was self propelled, the defendant would not face DUI charges; however, he could be charged with violating California Vehicle Code Section 21200.5, which makes it illegal “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.” The penalties for a conviction under this section are less severe than a standard DUI.

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.

Drunk Driving Charges For Vice Mayor of San Carlos

May 17, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

San Carlos’ Vice Mayor Andy Klein was arrested and charged with DUI in the early hours of May 13th, 2011, according to mercurynews.com.

Allegedly, Klein was parked on the exit ramp of northbound Interstate 280 at Edgewood Road when a San Mateo County sheriff’s deputy stopped thinking the parked car was disabled. After a brief discussion, the deputy believed Klein was under the influence so he called California Highway Patrol (CHP) to investigate.

Field sobriety tests were conducted and a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test was administered. Klein blew a .08 and he was subsequently arrested for DUI. He also provided a blood sample.

According to the San Mateo Daily Journal, Klein denied being under the influence, stating: “At no time did I feel that I was under the influence and would not be driving if I believed that I was unable to operate a vehicle responsibility.”

To be convicted, the prosecutor has to prove each element of the charged crime. In a DUI, (see CALCRIM 2110), they must show you were driving and while you were driving you were under the influence. A defense to drunk driving charges is the defendant was not driving.

In this case, the officer did not see Klein driving. He was pulled over at the time he was first approached by law enforcement. However, he may have admitted to driving and the prosecution will attempt to use that admission to prove that he was in fact driving the car just before he had contact with the officer.

San Diego Officer Arrested for Alleged Drunken Driving Incident In Chula Vista

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

San Diego Police Officer and 12-year veteran of the department, William Johnson, may have been under the influence on May 7th, 2011, at about 11:30 p.m., when his Lexus rear-ended a BMW at Paseo Ladera in Chula Vista, according to 10news.com.
police.accident.jpg After the incident, he was taken to Chula Vista Police Department and booked on suspicion of DUI. He was then released on his own recognizance. Johnson will work a desk job pending the outcome of this case.

This was the 9th San Diego police officer to face criminal charges or an internal investigation in just a few short months. Just after learning of Officer Johnson’s troubles, another 3-year veteran officer, Daniel Edward Dana, was arrested and charged with rape, assault, kidnapping and other felony charges.

With the image of the San Diego Police Department and the recent legal troubles of many of its officers, it will be interesting to see how prosecuting agencies handle pending cases that these officers were involved in. If an officer is called to testify in a matter, their credibility is always an issue. Having pending charges or a criminal record could taint their testimony.

DUI Charges For Passenger In Car?

May 10, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

A passenger in a vehicle was arrested for drunk driving where the driver was alleged to be intoxicated in Rutherford County, Tennessee. Glenee Taylor was arrested for allowing the driver, Parrish Harrell, to drive knowing he was intoxicated, according to wsmv.com.

Harrell was pulled over after he did not timely proceed through an intersection with a green light and then he crossed the center line a few times. A DUI investigation ensued and Harrell allegedly failed the field sobriety tests. He was subsequently charged with driving under the influence as was his passenger, Taylor.

In California, a passenger in a vehicle is not liable under the Vehicle or Penal Code for the actions of a drunk driver. In order for the person to be convicted under Vehicle Code Section 23152, the defendant had to drive a vehicle and when s/he drove, the defendant was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and/or drug, or a combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug, (see CALCRIM 2110).

Being a passenger alone would not warrant DUI charges for the passenger.

Escondido Drunk Driving Checkpoint Challenged

May 6, 2011 | The Law Offices of Susan L. Hartman

Escondido Police conducted a sobriety checkpoint in February 2011. According to 10news.com, one of the drivers passing through, Angel Navarrete, and his passenger, Daniel Alfaro, challeged the officers’ reason for the detention and videotaped the outcome. After not complying with the officers’ request to roll down his window and show his driver’s license, the officer proceeded to smash his window and arrest both men for resisting a police officer. Both plead not guilty and are due back in court in July 2011.

Resisting arrest is addressed under Penal Code Section 148, which states: “Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer…in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.”

The California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) provide what the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction for resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer, (see CALCRIM 2656): 1.) The person was a peace
officer lawfully performing or attempting to perform his duties as a peace officer; 2.) The defendant willfully resisted, obstructed, and/or delayed the person in the
performance or attempted performance of those duties; and, 3.) When the defendant acted, he knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person was a peace officer performing or attempting to perform his duties.

So was the officer acting lawfully? If not, the defendant must be found not guilty. CALCRIM 2670 provides: A peace officer is not lawfully performing his or her duties if he is unlawfully arresting or detaining someone or using unreasonable or excessive force when making or attempting to make an otherwise lawful arrest or detention.

Unlawful Detention: A peace officer may legally detain someone if the person consents to the detention or if specific facts known or apparent to the officer lead him to suspect that the person to be detained has been, is, or is about to be involved in activity relating to crime; and, a reasonable officer who knew the same facts would have the same suspicion. Any other detention is unlawful.

Unlawful Arrest: A peace officer may legally arrest someone if he has probable cause to make the arrest. Any other arrest is unlawful. Probable cause exists when the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest would persuade someone of reasonable caution that the person to be arrested has committed a crime.

DUI checkpoints must be conducted under the guidelines of Ingersoll v. Palmer in order for it to be constitutional. One of the criteria is the length and nature of the detention. “Each motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe symptoms of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a roadside sobriety test. At that point, further investigation would of course be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.”

It should be further noted that a driver can avoid the checkpoint and the officers cannot detain him or her unless “in avoiding the checkpoint the driver did anything unlawful, or exhibited obvious signs of impairment.”

In this case, the driver was not intoxicated and he had a valid driver’s license. He chose to drive through the checkpoint. He spoke to the officers through his window. The officers said he was detained, but they would not state a reason why. They threatened to arrest him for obstructing or delaying an officer because he refused to produce his license. Since he did not have signs of impairment, the officers should have let him proceed after a brief encounter.