Superior Court Of California, County of Tehama

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.

Tehama County Superior Court
633 Washington Street, Red Bluff, CA 96080-0278

Corning Courthouse
720 Hoag Street, Corning, CA 96021

» Tehama 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

Jury selection is a crucial aspect of taking any California driving under the influence case to trial. A skilled DUI / DWI criminal defense attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm has the experience needed to ensure that fair, impartial jurors are seated in every client’s case.

California criminal cases involve 12 jurors along with one or two alternates. In order to convict a defendant of drunk driving, the jurors must unanimously agree that the prosecutor has proved each element of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If any reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt exists, the driver is entitled to a verdict of not guilty.

If the jurors cannot agree on a unanimous verdict, there will be a hung jury, and the case is dismissed. Even though it is not a “not guilty” verdict, a hung jury is still a win for the defense. The prosecutor may choose not to refile the case. Just one juror must be convinced of the weakness of the prosecution’s case to achieve a hung jury.

During jury selection, a pool of potential jurors is sent to the courtroom. The clerk of the court will the swear the panel in, meaning that the jurors will stand, raise their right hands, and take an oath to truthfully answer questions that the lawyers ask them about their ability and qualifications to serve as jurors. For speedy trial purposes, this is also when the trial begins.

The judge typically “time-qualifies” the potential jurors, which means he tells them what type of case it is, how long it is expected to last – DUI cases typically last from three to four days – and asks about conflicts that would prevent any juror from serving in a DUI / DWI trial.

At that point, a group of prospective jurors will be called at random and seated in the jury box. The judge typically asks each juror to answer a number of questions listed on a bulletin board at the front of the court, such as where they live, their occupations, whether they are married or have children, whether they have ever served on a jury before, and if so, what type of case it was, and whether the jury was able to reach a verdict.

The potential jurors are asked to fill out questionnaires that give the judge and attorneys an idea of whether a juror can be fair and impartial. The judge may ask each juror to answer the questions out loud, and to elaborate on any answers if necessary. If any answers suggest that the juror is biased or cannot be fair, that individual can be challenged “for cause.”

It isn’t easy to have a juror excused for cause, because even when the individual seems biased – he or she may have a relative who is a police officer or been struck by a drunk driver – the judge will usually ask the potential juror if he or she can put aside those feelings and be fair to both sides. If the juror indicates that’s possible, he or she will not be excused for cause, even if fair and impartial service seems impossible to observers.

Once the judge has had a chance to question the potential jurors, the lawyers for both sides are given an opportunity to speak to them. This is a critical aspect for the defense in a DUI / DWI jury trial, because it is the first opportunity for a defense lawyer to connect with the jurors and build a rapport with them. It’s crucial for a DUI defense attorney to make a good first impression and get the jurors to like him or her, which helps them to like the client.

There are typically strict time limits on how long the attorneys can ask the potential jurors questions, so it is important to take advantage of this time by planting some key issues in the jurors’ minds that can be elaborated upon in opening and closing statements.

Once both the defense and prosecution have questioned the potential jurors, the judge gives the lawyers the opportunity, outside the presence of the jurors, to make challenges for cause.

The judge will then ask each attorney whether wants to use any of their peremptory challenges. Each side takes turns, usually beginning with the prosecutor. In California, a criminal defense attorney gets only 10 peremptory challenges. Jury selection is complete when both attorneys accept the 12 people who are in the jury box, or when both sides run out of peremptory challenges.

A skilled California attorney with experience defending drunk driving cases knows how critically important jury selection is in a DUI / DWI case, and will use that knowledge to connect with jurors, introduce important issues, and make a good first impression on behalf of a client charged with drunk driving.

There is an abundance of circumstances that can lead to an arrest for a California DUI. Maybe you and your date shared a bottle of wine at dinner and in your excitement to get back to your house a police officer pulled you over for speeding and detected the smell of alcohol on your breath. Or maybe you had one too many at a friend’s wedding and got stopped by a police officer when you failed to come to a complete stop at an intersection. Or perhaps you hit a sobriety check point on the way from the beach over the holidays. The point is that a drunk driving arrest can happen to almost anyone at any time and if this happens it is a good idea to speak with a California DUI lawyer immediately.

But just because you were stopped in your car does not automatically mean that the stop was legal and that the evidence of alcohol in your blood or on your breaths admissible as evidence against you in a court of law. In the United States, police need specific legal reasons for pulling your car over and conducting a DUI investigation. If the police did not follow the law in stopping your car and during the ensuing driving under the influence investigation, then a qualified and experienced criminal defense lawyer should be able to get the evidence gathered against you during that stop and investigation suppressed. If your one of your California DUI lawyer can convince the judge to suppress the evidence, the prosecution will not be able to use the evidence against you. Without use of such evidence, the case is likely to be dismissed.

A lawful DUI investigation can be triggered by one of three events: Police observation of a law violation, police observation of a driving pattern so suggestive of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs so as to provide a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place, or a lawful roadblock or checkpoint. If none of these conditions are present, any evidence gathered during the traffic stop likely will be suppressed.

Did you know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not recognize speeding as a drunk-driving pattern? Therefore, if a police officer offers the fact that you were speeding as his reason for instigating a drunk-driving investigation, skilled and experience California criminal defense lawyers may be able to convince the judge to suppress the evidence gathered in that investigation.

Today in California, the courts have ruled that police officers are allowed to stop a car based simply on a tip from an anonymous caller who believes that that the driver of the car is somehow under the influence. However, this does not mean the police do not need to conduct themselves within the law. If they carry out an investigation that is not warranted based on what they themselves observe, a California DUI attorney with experience and know how may convince a judge that the officer went beyond what the law allows and get the evidence suppressed.

A recent trend in the state’s efforts to curb drunk driving is the sobriety roadblock or checkpoint. While these are legal methods of stopping a driver, there are strict rules that the police must conform to when operating a drunk-driving roadblock or checkpoint. If any of these rules are violated, a good criminal defense attorney may be able to have the evidence obtained at the roadblock or checkpoint suppressed.

Generally a person facing drunk driving charges in California faces two different charges, one charge is for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs and the second is for driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 percent or higher. This second charge is known as a per se violation. The per se violation means that if your blood alcohol content was .08 percent or higher, and the traffic stop and DUI investigation were legal, then the charge will be considered per se (by operation of the law) that you were too drunk to drive.

When one fights a drunk driving defense case, the prosecutor does not have a simple job in getting a conviction. There are several hurdles a prosecutor must get over before a jury can find beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fact drunk while you were driving. It is important to remember concerning the .08 percent per se law that the case is not about whether at some point in the evening your blood alcohol level was .08 percent or higher, but rather whether your blood alcohol level was .08 percent or higher when you were driving.

Oftentimes a chemical test will be taken sometime after you were driving, many times an hour or more later. A skilled and knowledgeable California DUI lawyer or defense attorney can cast doubt upon a case by showing a jury that there is reasonable doubt whether a driver’s blood alcohol level was in fact above the legal limit during the time the person was actually driving.

DUI prosecutions are generally driven by four different categories of evidence: Driving pattern, physical signs and symptoms, field sobriety test performance, and chemical test results. If there is an investigative failure in any one of these areas, the driving under the influence prosecution will be in serious trouble. The best way to fight a drunk-driving case is to consult with an experienced DUI attorney as soon as possible.

California DUI criminal defense lawyer Darren T. Kavinoky of The Kavinoky Law Firm has successfully defended hundreds of drunk driving defense cases by creating reasonable doubt in one or more of these critical areas of the prosecution. Contact Darren 24 hours a day, seven days a week 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.

Criminalist testimony in a California driving under the influence of marijuana trial

A driving under the influence of marijuana case presents many challenges to both the prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer that a driving under the influence of alcohol case doesn’t. One of the reasons is because there is no chemical test that gives a “number” as to the level of impairment in a marijuana-related case like in an alcohol-related case. Another reason is that the effects of marijuana on driving aren’t as recognizable or as distinguishable as an alcohol-related DUI. Simply having the drug in one’s system (if evidenced by a blood or urine test) may encourage conservative jurors to incorrectly conclude that the accused must have been under its influence. These are just a few of the reasons why it is imperative that an individual accused of this offense hires an experienced California criminal defense lawyer who specializes in driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) who will know the most effective ways to offer and rebut this type of challenging evidence.

Criminalist testimony regarding driving impairment is vital to the prosecution because there is no “per se” drug test that indicates when an individual is under the influence. As a result, officer observations and criminalist testimony provides the bulk of the state’s case. The criminalist is typically a member of the local police department and, as such, is a member of the “prosecution team”. A good defense attorney will generally address this issue, pointing out the inherent bias that the criminalist therefore has. The criminalist will typically testify that the driving pattern, physical signs and symptoms and behavioral observations reported by the officer are consistent with the known effects of marijuana and that, based on his or her review of the report (never having met or studied the accused), he or she believes that the driver was under the influence of marijuana.

Criminalist testimony, when presented on behalf of the defense, typically addresses the fact that correlating positive marijuana results with a degree of impairment is subjective and makes it difficult to predict with any amount of certainty whether someone was impaired based on a chemical test. The defense’s criminalist will further point out the fact that the effects of marijuana will vary between individuals, influenced by such factors as one’s history of drug use, tolerance, health, an individual’s sensitivity to the drug, metabolism and a variety of other conditions. He or she will explain to the jury that marijuana can be detected in one’s system via a blood or urine test for days and even weeks after use, long after the effects of impairment wear off. Depending on the circumstances, he or she may even call into question the experience, training or observations that the officer made as they relate to marijuana use.

Clearly, criminalist testimony is important to both sides. Even more important is having a criminal attorney who knows and understands the science behind how marijuana affects and remains in one’s body so that he or she can effectively convey the criminalist’s testimony to the judge and jury in an articulate and uncomplicated manner. The exceptional California DUI attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm specialize in driving under the influence of drug cases as well as non-driving cases that involve marijuana, which provides their clients accused of driving under the influence of marijuana with unparalleled legal representation. With law offices located throughout the state, including several in and around the Los Angeles area, they are easily accessible for anyone in need of an outstanding defense. They have a variety of criminalist expert witnesses that they rely on, depending on the facts of the case, which allows them to present the most effective defense for each individual client. To learn more, contact The Kavinoky Firm today for a free consultation.

Alcohol Education Programs in Contra Costa 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 Contra Costa County, California:

Criminal Justice Services – Central
(Service Provided: 18 Month)
2020 North Broadway,
Suite 101,
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Phone: 925-646-6470; Fax: 925-646-6480

Criminal Justice Services – East
(Service Provided: 18 Month)
2400 Sycamore Drive,
Suite 36,
Antioch, California 94509
Phone: 925-427-8630

Alcohol & Drug Abuse Council Of Contra Costa Co., Inc.
(Service Provided: First Offender)
171 Mayhew Way,
Suite 101,
Pleasant Hill, California 94523
Phone: 925-932-8100; Fax: 925-932-8392

Future Solutions 560 Lennon Lane
(Service Provided: First Offender)
560 Lennon Lane,
Suite 200,
Walnut Creek, California 94598
Phone: 925-932-7791; Fax: 925-932-7793

Neighborhood House Of North Richmond
(Service Provided: First Offender)
207 37th Street,
Room 114,
Richmond, California 94805
Phone: 510-233-1044; Fax: 510-235-8633

East County DUI
(Service Provided: First Offender)
500 School Street,
Pittsburg, California 94565
Phone: 925-439-1332; Fax: 925-439-0322

Occupational Health Services, Inc.
(Service Provided: First Offender)
1070 Concord Avenue,
Suite 222,
Concord, California 94520
Phone: 925-798-8936; Fax: 925-798-1145

Occupational Health Services
(Service Provided: 18 Month)
6401 Stockton Avenue,
El Cerrito, California 94806
Phone: 925-798-8936; Fax: 925-798-1145

» 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.

Alcohol Education Programs in Merced 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 Merced County, California:

Drydock DDP
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
1521 West Main Street,
Merced, California 95340
Phone: 209-383-7797; Fax: 209-383-7538

» 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.

Alcohol Education Programs in San Mateo 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 San Mateo County, California:

Pyramid Alternatives, Inc.
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
480 Manor Plaza,
Pacifica, California 94044
Phone: 650-355-8787; Fax: 650-355-8780

YFA Archway
(Service Provided: First Offender)
609 Price Avenue,
Suite 201,
Redwood City, California 94063
Phone: 650-366-8433; Fax: 650-366-8455

Sitike Counseling Center
(Service Provided: First Offender)
306 Spruce Avenue,
South San Francisco, California 94080
Phone: 650-589-9305; Fax: 650-589-9330

Free at Last
(Service Provided: First Offender)
1796 Bay Road,
E. Palo Alto, California 94303
Phone: 650-462-6999; Fax: 650-462-1055

Occupational Health Services, Inc.
(Service Provided: First Offender)
533 Middlefield Road,
Redwood City, California 94063
Phone: 650-572-0300; Fax: 650-572-0274

» 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.

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.