It is important for recreational boaters to understand that operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a serious crime. When a person is being investigated for boating under the influence, the investigators will use many of the same tests used in DUI / DWI investigations. These tests include chemical tests and field sobriety tests. Given that boating under the influence of alcohol is crime, a person accused of doing so should contact a California criminal defense attorney who has experience defending people accused of boating under the influence.

In California, the responsibility for enforcing the boating laws falls upon approximately 150 state and local agencies. Any officer of these agencies is authorized to investigate boaters who may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When an officer of one of those agencies has a reasonable belief that a boater is under the influence, the officer can require the person operating the boat to submit to a chemical test. The chemical test can be either a test of the boat operator’s blood, breath, or urine.

California drivers are subject to California’s implied consent law. The implied consent law requires a driver who has been arrested for drunk driving to submit to a chemical test. Refusal to submit to a chemical test will result in additional penalties. The prosecutor in the case may also present the refusal as evidence of consciousness of guilt. All of these rules apply to boating under the influence. Due to the similarities, a DUI / DWI attorney with the right experience is capable of defending BUI / BWI charges too.

Regarding the chemical tests, although an accused boater has a choice of a blood, breath or urine test, when the driver is suspected of being under the influence of drugs, the investigator will insist on a blood or urine test. That is because the breath test does not help in determining whether a person is under the influence of drugs.

An officer investigating a boating under the influence case may require the operator to perform a field sobriety test, such as the walk and turn test or the ABC test. Just as in a case for driving a car while intoxicated, the arresting police officer will be observing the boater’s behavior before, during, and after arrest and will make a written record of any such observations. This information will be used later to justify the arrest and to provide evidence for a court case.

Many BUI / BWI investigations are prompted by a person falling overboard, a collision, or another type of accident. In the event of an accident or a person falling overboard, especially one causing injury or death, investigators will interview witnesses and passengers in the boat and will take photographs, measurements, and other physical evidence.

The potential punishments for boating under the influence can be very harsh. It is critical to seek the help of a qualified criminal defense attorney. A California attorney experienced in defending BUI / BWI cases can advance an aggressive defense to the charges, and may keep any negative consequences to a minimum.

Superior Court Of California, County of El Dorado

If you have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs in the state of California, it is important to know the location of the courthouse where your arraignment will be held. If there are multiple courthouses in the county, please contact a skilled California DUI / DWI defense attorney for more information.

El Dorado County Superior Court
Main Street Courthouse
Family Law/Adoptions/Criminal/Juvenile
495 Main Street, Placerville, CA 95667

West Slope
Criminal
2850 Fairlane Court, Building C, Placerville, CA 95667

West Slope
Traffic/Small Claims/Unlawful Detainer
2850 Fairlane Court, Building C, Placerville, CA 95667

Cameron Park Branch
Civil/Probate
3321 Cameron Park Drive, Cameron Park, CA 95682

South Lake Tahoe
Civil/Criminal/Traffic/Small Claims/Probate/Family Law
1354 Johnson Blvd. #2, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

» El Dorado County Superior Court of California website.

Getting arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI can be a frightening experience. Suspected drunk drivers face a legal labyrinth that can seem daunting. A drunk driving case generates two separate cases – in criminal court, and at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A California attorney with experience defending drinking and driving cases can help drivers navigate through both the DMV hearing and the court case.

» Return to California Superior Courts, general information

Superior Court Of California, County of Napa

If you have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs in the state of California, it is important to know the location of the courthouse where your arraignment will be held. If there are multiple courthouses in the county, please contact a skilled California DUI / DWI defense attorney for more information.

Napa County Superior Court
1111 Third Street, Napa, CA 94559-3001

» Napa County Superior Court of California website.

Getting arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI can be a frightening experience. Suspected drunk drivers face a legal labyrinth that can seem daunting. A drunk driving case generates two separate cases – in criminal court, and at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A California attorney with experience defending drinking and driving cases can help drivers navigate through both the DMV hearing and the court case.

» Return to California Superior Courts, general information

Superior Court Of California, County of Trinity

If you have been arrested for Driving Under the Influence of alcohol or drugs in the state of California, it is important to know the location of the courthouse where your arraignment will be held. If there are multiple courthouses in the county, please contact a skilled California DUI / DWI defense attorney for more information.

Trinity County Superior Court
101 Court Street, Weaverville, CA 96093

» Trinity County Superior Court of California website.

Getting arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI can be a frightening experience. Suspected drunk drivers face a legal labyrinth that can seem daunting. A drunk driving case generates two separate cases – in criminal court, and at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A California attorney with experience defending drinking and driving cases can help drivers navigate through both the DMV hearing and the court case.

» Return to California Superior Courts, general information

The Lookback Period for Priorability

In California, there is a 10-year “lookback” period for prior drunk driving convictions. Anyone with a DUI / DWI conviction who is arrested for drinking and driving within 10 years faces increased punishment on the new count. If more than 10 years pass between arrests, the later arrest is treated as a first-time DUI.

Prior convictions affect many issues in a criminal case, from bail to sentencing. Multiple-offense DUI drivers face greater license suspensions, fines, alcohol education classes, etc. A California attorney experienced at defending drunk driving cases can help drivers with multiple DUI arrests craft a defense and mitigate the consequences.

DUI / DWI offenses which will count as prior convictions include driving under the influence (California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a)), driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 percent or greater (23152(b)), DUI with injury (23153 (a) and (b)), reckless driving involving alcohol, also known as “wet-reckless” (23103.5). The 10-year period is calculated from arrest date to arrest date.

Although the conviction itself must take place before the conviction for the current offense, there is no requirement that either the offense or the conviction be before the offense for which the defendant is being tried. The California Legislature has declared that the timing of court proceedings should not affect the court’s ability to impose enhanced penalties for multiple offenses.

For example, a defendant may be in the midst of a second-time DUI case, which can sometimes take several months to conclude. If during that time the defendant is arrested for a third DUI offense, then the court in the third case can sentence the defendant as a third-time drunk driver, even though the defendant has not been convicted as a second-time DUI driver. The only hard and fast rule is that the offenses occur within a 10-year span.

The California Legislature has enacted increasingly harsh penalties for drivers with multiple drunk driving offenses within a 10-year period. The surest way to fight back is to consult with a DUI / DWI lawyer experienced in defending multiple drinking and driving cases.

One is considered to be innocent until proven guilty in a criminal proceeding such as a drunk driving case. In criminal courts the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The standard of requiring a prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt applies in driving under the influence cases and in all criminal cases in California. Often it is difficult for the state to achieve this very high standard when faced by an able DUI attorney who has what it takes to make it difficult for the prosecutor to prove each and every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

To the casual observer the elements that make up a drunk driving offense may seem straightforward, but there are several nuances that an experienced DUI attorney understands. This understanding allows the attorney to poke holes in any one of the elements. If your attorney can create reasonable doubt as to just one of the elements, then a jury will have to find that you are not guilty of the charges.

It is important to understand that you must be under the influence at the time of driving. It must also be understood that there are two separate charges that apply to DUI cases. Those are Vehicle Code 23152(a) Sections which says it is a misdemeanor to drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and Vehicle Code 23152(b) Sections which say it is a misdemeanor to drive with .08 percent or more of alcohol in your blood. While sometimes a person will be charged under (a) and not (b), a person charged with (b) will always be charged with (a) as well.

When a person is being charged under Vehicle Code Section 23512(b), the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood alcohol level of the motorist was .08 percent or higher at the time the person was driving. If the police officer conducts a chemical test an hour after a person was pulled over, there is a chance that a good DUI attorney will be able to raise doubt as to whether the blood alcohol level was really .08 percent at the time of driving.

The standard of reasonable doubt in a driving while intoxicated case is the same high standard applied in a murder case. There is a responsibility upon a jury to take this standard seriously in order to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole. It is a defense attorney of quality who can convey this responsibility to the jury members in order to have them apply the high standard of proof to a drunk-driving case. The experienced attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm are well-known for their skill and integrity. Call for a free consultation.

Many drivers arrested for DUI / DWI in California take a roadside breath test to determine blood alcohol content (BAC) before being arrested. Although police and prosecutors believe PAS (Preliminary Alcohol Screening) test results are damning evidence in drunk driving cases, these results can often be successfully challenged in court. An experienced California criminal defense attorney who specializes in DUI / DUI cases has the skills needed to effectively challenge PAS tests in driving under the influence cases.

DUI / DWI criminal defense attorneys have been dealing with the problems that arise with roadside breath testing for years. In the early days of roadside breath testing, it was accepted that the technology was somewhat inferior, and that roadside PAS tests were not reliable enough to be admitted into evidence. Therefore, if police used an alcohol screening test during a drinking and driving investigation, the only thing that could be introduced in evidence at a DUI / DWI trial was that the PAS machine indicated the presence of alcohol – the numeric results were excluded.

Unfortunately, that is no longer true. Courts hearing DUI / DWI cases now allow the numeric results of the PAS tests to be considered by the jury if certain evidentiary foundations are established. Therefore, motorists are taking roadside breath tests after being advised that their participation is entirely voluntary, only to have the numeric results introduced at trial.

There are two types of roadside breath tests – PAS or PBT tests, which are merely screening tests given to support the officer’s decision to make an arrest, and roadside evidential tests. There are critical distinctions between the two.

The PAS, or preliminary alcohol screening, is a voluntary test. It is not an “implied consent” test, which means that the driver is under no obligation to take a PAS test. In fact, in many states, the officer must advise the driver that the test is not required, but if an arrest is made, the driver will then be required to submit to a test of his or her blood or breath to determine alcohol content.

Unfortunately, many police officers ignore this responsibility during drunk driving roadside investigations. Many times, the driver is told that he or she must submit to a test as a collection tube is thrust into the mouth of the awestruck motorist. A DUI / DWI arrest invariably follows. It likely would have followed anyway, except now the unwitting motorist has provided additional evidence for the government to use against him or her.

The recent addition of the evidential PAS test, also known as the “E-PAS” or AlcoSensor IV XL, has made roadside DUI / DWI investigations even more complicated. These versions of the roadside breath test are the evidential test that is required under the Implied Consent Law. The exact same machine is used to administer this mandatory test as is used for what was, moments earlier before the driver was arrested, an optional test. The only difference is that they are able to print out the results instead of merely viewing the results on an LED readout.

Unfortunately, accused drivers are often unable to pinpoint the moment that they are placed under arrest for drinking and driving. One minute they are offered a roadside test, and told it is optional. A moment later, they are told that a roadside breath alcohol test on the same machine is mandatory. It isn’t hard to understand how a driver can become confused. This is why many DUI / DWI criminal defense lawyers advise people to refuse all roadside breath tests and insist upon a blood test if they are ever the target of a drunk driving investigation.

Once an arrest is made, California’s Implied Consent Law is triggered. A failure to give a blood or breath sample following a drunk driving arrest can result in administrative sanctions from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) which begin with a one-year driver’s license suspension, with no opportunity for a restricted or provisional license during that year.

Roadside breath testing arose to address a significant issue in drunk driving prosecutions – because of the typical time-lapse between driving and testing, there was often an issue of whether the driver’s BAC could have been below the legal limit at the time of driving. The aim of roadside breath testing in drunk driving cases was to eliminate that issue by fixing the blood or breath alcohol level (BAC) at a time closer to the time of driving.

While this may have been a worthy goal, there are significant problems that overshadow any advances made. The challenges to both the PAS test – the pre-arrest roadside breath test – and the E-PAS – the post-arrest roadside breath test – are the same, because they are taken on the same machine. The distinction is that the E-PAS is hooked up to a printer, providing the DUI / DWI arrestee a copy of the printout of the faulty device.

The inherent flaws in breath testing work to the advantage of the accused drunk driver. DUI / DWI prosecutions are just like any other criminal case – in order for prosecutors to get a conviction, they must prove each element of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor is unable to present a case that is 100 percent free of reasonable doubt, the driver cannot be convicted. This is the requirement in every criminal case, whether it is driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI drugs, vehicular manslaughter, robbery, murder, or any other offense.

In order for a breath test to prove a motorist’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there are certain evidentiary foundations that must be observed. Thus, the most basic challenge to breath tests lies in the calibration, maintenance and accuracy of the testing machine. Both field breath testing units and stationhouse breath testing units are subject to problems, and it is vital to explore these issues in every drunk driving prosecution.

It’s also critical to determine whether the officer who gave the breath test was qualified to do so. There are rules and regulations regarding the administration of breath tests, and it is imperative that only those with the appropriate training perform these tests on motorists suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.

One effective challenge to roadside breath tests relates to the technology of the machine itself. The roadside PAS devices are “fuel cell” machines. Alcohol is oxidized on an electromagnetic plate, and the amount of electrochemical energy generated is converted to a number that is supposedly equal to the blood-alcohol level of the motorist.

This technology creates the possibility that other compounds in the human breath are being misinterpreted as alcohol, and delivering inflated BAC results. Mouth alcohol is one factor that can skew the results of a breath test.

Mouth alcohol is one of the most significant problems with forensic breath testing. The danger of mouth alcohol contamination instigates many of the rules and regulations in breath testing, such as a 15- or 20-minute waiting period, observing the subject to ensure they do not regurgitate or introduce foreign material in the mouth, and the requirement of obtaining two similar results. These are all critical issues in DUI / DWI cases, and especially in cases involving the PAS machine.

PAS machines don’t have mouth alcohol detectors, also called slope detectors. A slope detector is a computer software program that is designed to detect a rapid drop-off – or slope – in the alcohol level of an individual’s breath sample. The machine is not smart enough to know whether it is analyzing alcohol molecules in the deep lung air – which is supposed to be measuring – or alcohol molecules that have been trapped in the mouth or regurgitated from the stomach. This is particularly problematic when the driver is given a breath test shortly after drinking, while alcohol is still in the stomach, or has been trapped in the mouth due to dental work, food traps, or other factors.

PAS tests also lack the ability to measure breath temperature. Every calculation the machine makes is based on the assumption that the subject’s breath temperature is 34 degrees centigrade. Unfortunately, just like the other assumptions that are made about the so-called “average” person, any variation from “average” can greatly impact the reading. Every degree of temperature elevation – which could be from illness or activities like dancing or sports – equals a 7 percent increase in alcohol percentage.

Many motorists targeted for drunk driving investigations are simply improper subjects for breath testing. DUI / DWI criminal defense lawyers are aware that those who have had recent dental work, or who suffer from GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disorder, the medical term for a type of persistent heartburn) are inappropriate subjects for breath testing. There are many other conditions that could cause an unnaturally high reading on a breath test.

Because of the inherent problems with breath testing, anyone arrested for DUI / DWI should contact an experienced California criminal defense attorney who is well-versed in these issues. The results of the roadside breath test are often the most damning evidence offered in a DUI / DWI case. It is essential that these results be challenged to achieve a successful result.

Many DUI / DWI defendants are sentenced to jail, but incarceration offers no benefit to drunk driving defendants who have problems with alcohol. Because substance abuse is such a widespread problem, the court system is undergoing a fundamental shift in the way it regards individuals with alcohol and drug problems.

Judges and prosecutors now realize that it is ineffective to merely lock away alcoholics without treating underlying addiction issues. Because of this changing approach, treatment in an established and state licensed drug and alcohol rehabilitation program has become an accepted alternative sentencing option. An experienced DUI / DWI defense lawyer from the Kavinoky Law Firm can advise whether treatment may be an option in a California drunk driving case.

The length of treatment varies, but the average time is 30 days. Most rehabilitation facilities are privately owned, and can be either co-ed or gender-specific. Because of a shortage of rehab beds, many facilities have a waiting list.

Treatment may include behavior modification and/or medication. Three commonly used behavioral treatments for alcohol abuse and alcoholism – motivation enhancement therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and 12-step therapy – can significantly reduce drinking in the year following treatment. Medication such as naltrexone (ReVia™), an anti-craving medication, has been shown to be effective, especially when combined with behavior therapy.

Alcohol and drug rehabilitation can replace alcohol education programs that are part of many DUI defendants’ sentences. Rehabilitation is typically set as a condition of probation if the offender is willing and has been accepted into a program. Time spent in rehabilitation is credited toward the completion of a jail sentence in what is known as good time custody credits. Once the program is completed, certification is submitted to the court. If rehabilitation is not successfully completed, the offender violates probation, and likely will go to jail.

For individuals with multiple DUIs on their records or unresolved issues with alcohol, rehabilitation can be a valuable alternative to incarceration. A California attorney experienced in defending drunk driving cases can review each case to determine whether rehabilitation or another form of alternate sentencing is a viable option.

Driving under the influence of marijuana is a serious charge with serious consequences. The best way for an individual charged with this offense to avoid the harsh penalties that can be imposed in connection with this type of DUI is for him or her to hire a criminal defense lawyer who specializes in California driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) defense.

Defenses to driving under the influence of marijuana are numerous and include simple arguments, Constitutional right violations and scientific evidence. Because DUI law is technical and specific, only a qualified criminal attorney who has mastered this area of the law should attempt to employ these defenses.

Simple defense arguments may be raised when part of the investigation just doesn’t make sense. A savvy attorney knows that he or she can question the officer with respect to the accused driver’s driving pattern, as marijuana typically doesn’t yield any specific driving behavior. The attorney knows that he or she challenge the field sobriety tests (FSTs), as they were designed to test impairment related to alcohol, not drugs. The attorney knows that he or she can address the many innocent explanations for the signs and symptoms that are commonly associated with marijuana use (such as illness, fatigue and nerves) – explanations that the officer never even bothered to inquire about. The attorney also knows that he or she can cross-examine the prosecution’s drug recognition expert (DRE) about the fact that he hasn’t received any medical training even though he’s evaluating the suspect’s body.

Constitutional violations include anything that the officer did illegally with respect to the stop, detention, arrest and/or collection of evidence. If the officer didn’t have “reasonable suspicion” when he or she pulled the driver over, if the officer didn’t have “probable cause” to order the driver out of the car, if the driver wasn’t displaying signs of impairment, if the officer illegally searched the car or the driver or if the officer didn’t give the suspect the choice of a blood or urine test, these are the kinds of defenses that a skilled California DUID attorney will raise.

Scientific defenses are the most difficult to argue. It takes an attorney who truly understands the science behind chemical testing and how marijuana affects the body to effectively articulate these types of defenses to a judge and jury in a manner in which they, too, can understand and appreciate the arguments. Some scientific defenses include how the blood or urine sample was collected and stored, as there are very strict guidelines that regulate sample collection (especially with respect to blood) and what must be done with the sample one’s it’s been collected. The “chain of custody” also raises issues, because it must be guaranteed that there was no possibility that the sample analyzed belonged to someone other than the accused driver. Perhaps the most important scientific defense is that a chemical test indicating marijuana use is not necessarily indicative of impairment. The defendant’s lawyer must be able to explain (with the help of a criminalist) that marijuana can linger in the body for days and even weeks following use – a critical issue to raise in a driving under the influence of marijuana case where the only relevant issue is whether the accused was impaired at the time of driving.

It should be noted that although a medical marijuana defense may apply to possession or cultivation charges, it will not be a valid excuse in a DUID case. This is because D.U.I. law is unconcerned with whether or not the drug is legal or illegal, prescribed or over-the-counter and is only concerned with whether the driver was under its influence at the time of driving.

The outstanding attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm excel in defending California driving under the influence cases and in defending marijuana-related cases, providing the most comprehensive legal representation to their clients accused of driving under the influence of marijuana. For unsurpassed representation, contact them today for a free consultation.

Alcohol Education Programs in Del Norte County, California

In California, there are several levels of Alcohol Education Programs that are offered. In order to enroll in one of the programs, one must be referred, either by the court or the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).

BEWARE: Completing an alcohol program may not satisfy the DMV. That is just one reason why it is critical that you consult with a California criminal defense lawyer that concentrates on DUI defense.

Driving Under the Influence programs in Del Norte County, California:

Humboldt Addictions Services Program
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
1079 4th Street,
Crescent City, California 95531
Phone: 707-464-7849; Fax: 707-465-6522

» Return to Driving Under the Influence program in California, directory of service providers

Note: This list is provided for convenience and informational purposes only. We do not recommend or endorse any specific Alcohol or Drug Risk Reduction Program.