Alcohol Education Programs in Santa Barbara 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 Santa Barbara County, California:

Council On Alcoholism And Drug Abuse
(Service Provided: 18 Month)
232 E. Canon Perdido Street,
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Phone: 805-963-1433; Fax: 805-963-1720

Central Coast Headway, Inc.
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
318 W. Carmen Lane,
Santa Maria, California 93454
Phone: 805-922-2106; Fax: 805-922-2751

Central Coast Headway, Inc.
(Service Provided: First Offender, 18 Month)
115 East College Avenue,
Suite 16,
Lompoc, California 93436
Phone: 805-737-0015; Fax: 805-737-7154

Zona Seca
(Service Provided: First Offender)
26 West Figueroa Street,
2nd Floor,
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Phone: 805-963-8961; Fax: 805-963-0322

» 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.

California Criminal Law – Boating Under the Influence (BUI) Punishment

Boating is an activity that many people engage in for fun and recreation. Amidst all the fun and the sunshine, some people fail to understand that it is illegal to operate a boat under the influence of alcohol. The problem is that when alcohol and boating mix, people can get injured. Boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a criminal offense that carries serious punishment for guilty offenders. The punishment can include jail time, alcohol education classes, fines, and other penalties. A qualified California DUI / DWI attorney is capable of handling cases involving boating under the influence.

The California Harbors and Navigation Code provides the laws that relate to boating under the influence. Being under the influence is defined as having a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 percent for a recreational vessel and .04 percent for a commercial craft. The statute sets a zero-tolerance policy for watercraft such as aquaplanes and water skis. The zero-tolerance policy means that any trace of alcohol is illegal when operating these types of watercraft.

Boating under the influence may be a lot more dangerous than driving a car under the influence of drugs or alcohol, because people drive cars every day and are well practiced at it. When it comes to boating however, many people might drive a boat a couple of times a year. Such a person is far from an expert boat operator. For that same person to be drunk and boating is extremely dangerous.

Boating under the influence is most commonly charged as a misdemeanor. As such it is punishable by up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. When a BUI results in an injury to another person, it can be charged as a felony. A BUI felony can carry a penalty of one year in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs and causing death to another person is a felony that carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. Just as in cases of driving a car, a person convicted of boating under the influence may also be required by the court to take boating safety courses and alcohol education classes.

In California, boaters under the age of 21 are not allowed to consume any alcohol at all. A person under 21 with a BAC of .01 percent or more cannot even use water skis. A BAC of .01 percent to .05 percent in a boater under 21 is an infraction, with penalties similar to a traffic ticket.

Just like drivers in ordinary vehicles, boaters are subject to California’s Implied Consent Law. This law requires a person who has been arrested for driving or boating under the influence to submit to a chemical test. Refusing to submit to the chemical test can carry additional penalties.

Because the penalties in a BUI / BWI case can be so severe, it’s extremely important to have competent, aggressive legal representation. A California criminal defense lawyer with experience defending boating under the influence cases can fight the charges and keep negative consequences to a minimum.

Superior Court Of California, County of Fresno

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.

Fresno County Superior Court
Downtown Location
1100 Van Ness Avenue, Fresno, CA 93724-0002

Clovis Courthouse
1011 Fifth Street, Clovis, CA 93612

Coalinga Courthouse
160 W. Elm Street, Coalinga, CA 93210

Firebaugh Courthouse
1325 "O" Street, Firebaugh, CA 93622

Fowler Courthouse
127 E. Merced Street, Fowler, CA 93625

Kerman Courthouse
719 S. Madera Avenue, Kerman, CA 93630

Kingsburg Courthouse
1600 California Street, Kingsburg, CA 93631

Reedley Courthouse
815 "G" Street, Reedley, CA 93654

Sanger Courthouse
619 "N" Street, Sanger, CA 93657

Selma Courthouse
2424 McCall, Selma, CA 93662

» Fresno 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 Orange

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.

Orange County Superior Court – Central Justice Center (CJC)
700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701

Central Justice Center Annex
909 N. Main, Santa Ana, CA 92701

Complex Civil Center (CXC)
751 West Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701

Lamoreaux Justice Center (LJC)
341 The City Drive, Orange, CA 92868-3209

Harbor Justice Center (HJC/LH)
Laguna Hills Facility
4601 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660-2595

North Justice Center (NJC)
1275 North Berkeley Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92832-1258

West Justice Center (WJC)
8141 13th Street, Westminster, CA 92683-4593

» Orange 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 Tulare

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.

Tulare County Superior Court
425 East Kern, Tulare, CA 93274

Visalia Courthouse
County Civic Center
221 Mooney Blvd., Visalia, CA 93291

Porterville Courthouse
87 East Morton, Porterville, CA 93257

Dinuba Courthouse
640 S. Alta Avenue, Dinuba, CA 93618

» Tulare 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

Motion for Blood/Urine Sample to be Split

The experienced California DUI lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm perform a great deal of work before a drunk driving defense case ever goes to trial. A skilled California DUI lawyer typically makes one or more pretrial motions at the driver’s arraignment or at a later date. One motion common in a driving while intoxicated case is a request to have a pretrial motion for a blood or urine sample split so that it can be tested by an independent forensic expert.

Individuals arrested for drunk driving or driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) must be told of their right to have a blood or urine sample preserved for independent testing. This is especially important when a driver submits to a breath test to determine blood alcohol content (BAC), because when a breath test is taken, there is no independent sample retained for later retesting.

A chemical test is a significant piece of evidence used against the defendant. The prosecution will attempt to use a chemical test result of .08 percent BAC or greater – the legal limit for driving in all 50 states – to prove a defendant is guilty of driving while intoxicated. However, many chemical tests are administered hours after the driver was last behind the wheel. Remember, it’s not illegal to have a BAC of .08 percent at the police station, only while driving a vehicle. An independent defense expert may be able to establish that the driver’s BAC at the time of driving was below the legal limit.

When the split is obtained, it will be sent to a private, independent forensic lab for testing. Law-enforcement agencies are required to collect a sufficient amount in order to allow future tests. Testing will analyze not only the blood alcohol content of the sample, but will also determine whether proper testing protocol was followed.

Police must follow strict guidelines when conducting chemical tests. Blood samples should be drawn using sterile, dry hypodermic needles and syringes, or using clean, dry vacuum type containers with sterile needles. No alcohol can be used to clean the skin or the equipment used in the collection. The blood must be mixed with a precise mixture of anticoagulant and preservative. If the levels of the anticoagulant and preservative are not correct, the test results can be skewed. For example, if the blood sample becomes fermented, it will produce falsely high BAC readings.

In some cases during a DUI investigation, the driver’s blood or urine sample is lost or destroyed. While the prosecution has no legal duty to collect evidence that might be beneficial to the defense, they do have an obligation to preserve this possibly exculpatory evidence – evidence that may point to the defendant’s innocence. If the prosecution neglected to preserve such evidence, a savvy California DUI lawyer will ask the court to issue sanctions that may result in suppression of the evidence or the dismissal of the case.

If the prosecution doesn’t comply with a court order to split a blood or urine sample for independent analysis, the defense can ask for sanctions against the prosecutor, and the evidence the prosecutor would have used to convict the defendant may be excluded. If police have failed to preserve a sample, then this will be the basis not only for exclusion, but possible dismissal of the charges.

However, in order for sanctions to be levied, the defense must prove that the prosecutor or police acted in bad faith. If bad faith cannot be established, then the defendant is entitled to relief only on a showing that the evidence was material and exculpatory.

Drivers accused of DUI / DWI often believe that a chemical test result that places them over the legal limit for driving means an automatic conviction, but that’s not necessarily true. A California DUI Lawyer who focuses on driving under the influence cases will file a motion to have any sample split and sent to an independent laboratory to determine whether the driver’s BAC result can be challenged.

The point of the field sobriety test is to test for a person’s physical and mental impairment. This is known as a Divided Attention Test. Essentially, the test is set up to test whether one is mentally capable of following the directions that are given by the police officer and whether the individual is capable of physically carrying out those instructions.

For example, if the officer instructs the motorist to take ten steps forward and then do a 180-degree turn to the right, the officer is not simply testing whether a person can walk and turn without tripping, but whether the person also has the presence of mind to walk exactly ten steps, and whether that person turns to the right as they were told. A person who forgets the directions given by the officer may be considered mentally impaired by the officer on the basis that they can’t follow simple directions.

The prosecution will try to make any failure to listen to directions or any failure to carry out the directions without stumbling, tripping, or falling as signs that a person was under the influence. A skilled DUI / DWI defense attorney will be able to make sense of those failures and paint them as normal actions having nothing to do with being intoxicated. Perhaps a person has poor hearing or inherently bad balance which can account for any problems during a field sobriety test.

Once again, in California there is the per se law that says that anyone with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater is considered, by law, too drunk to drive, and there is the second law which states that it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol. It is in this case that the prosecution will seek to use the field sobriety test as circumstantial evidence of a person’s intoxication.

One should bear in mind that although police use the field sobriety tests to gather evidence against a motorist suspected of drunk driving, in California, the field sobriety tests are optional even though most police officers won’t tell that to a suspect.

While the field sobriety test is used to determine both the motorist’s physical and mental impairment, it should be remembered that experts on both sides of the law agree that mental impairment will always precede physical impairment. Physical impairments are not necessarily rooted in mental impairments. Fragile bones or an old soccer injury can cause just as much, if not more, physical impairment than alcohol.

Other factors that may result in physical impairment can be drowsiness, nervousness, or perhaps the threat of going to jail for the night. It is the job of a qualified DUI / DWI Defense lawyer to do a thorough investigation into clients’ histories to determine if any of the above factors may have been the cause of physical impairment instead of alcohol.

Furthermore, a person with a high tolerance for alcohol, though they might be mentally impaired, may be able to disguise that impairment by carrying out the physical part of the field sobriety tests without any problems. Disguising mental symptoms of impairment is not as simple, or even possible.

In performing field sobriety tests for DUI / DWI cases, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has “validated” three tests in particular. These tests are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk-and-Turn Test, and the One-Leg-Stand Test. These tests have standard instructions for the motorist to follow and they have standard scoring for the police officer to use in the evaluation of the motorist’s performance.

There are other non-standardized tests that may also be used by the police. They are, the finger-to-nose test, reciting the alphabet, the finger tap test, the hand pat test, and the Rhomberg balance test, among other things a police officer may use to determine a motorist’s impairment.

At the end of the day, no matter how a driver being prosecuted for a DUI / DWI feels he or she performed on a field sobriety test, a drunk-driving defense attorney with years of experience can use the results of the tests to demonstrate that any physical impairment came from sources other than alcohol.

The courts have ruled that sobriety checkpoints don’t violate a motorist’s Fourth Amendment rights if they are conducted within certain criteria. California drunk driving sobriety checkpoints must follow specific guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to be constitutional. However, police don’t always follow that protocol. If they don’t, any evidence gathered as a result of an arrest at a sobriety checkpoint may be suppressed at trial.

The skilled DUI / DWI defense attorneys of The Kavinoky Law Firm are extremely knowledgeable about the requirements of California drunk driving Sobriety Checkpoints and can determine whether an arrest was valid. They will request the following information during pre-trial discovery to help determine whether police followed the established guidelines:

• The identity of all involved law enforcement personnel, both sworn and civilian
• The identity of each person arrested at the roadblock. This information is necessary to determine whether proper procedures were actually followed, if defense counsel opts to interview them
• Where field sobriety tests were performed, and who conducted them
• Where chemical tests were given, and who conducted them
• All communication, diagrams, and reports used in designing the roadblock
• How long each driver was stopped at the checkpoint
• Whether a neutral formula was employed in stopping motorists, or whether officers used their own discretion
• Whether the roadblock had an official appearance, including warning signs, lights, and uniformed personnel
• How the location of the roadblock was determined
• How the timing and duration of the roadblock was determined
• Whether the public received advance notice of the checkpoint
• Whether the safety of drivers was of primary concern
• Whether motorists were allowed the opportunity to turn away from the roadblock without being detained

An experienced California defense lawyer will analyze this information to determine whether there were discrepancies between the protocol set by the courts and the operation of the checkpoint. If police did not follow all of the necessary guidelines, and there was no probable cause for a stop, a DUI / DWI defense attorney will move to have all of the evidence that stemmed from the arrest excluded.

If police don’t follow the established guidelines when operating a sobriety checkpoint, probable cause is needed to make an arrest if there is no warrant. Probable cause exists when the facts known to the officer would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe that the person is guilty of a crime. The officer must be able to articulate why the driver was stopped and ordered to exit the vehicle.

Probable cause must exist during each stage of the encounter, including the performance of the field sobriety tests, chemical testing, and the arrest itself. If there was no probable cause, and the search and seizure took place without a warrant, there is a strong likelihood that the court will grant the motion to suppress, thus excluding the evidence gathered during the sobriety checkpoint.

This type of challenge can result in the exclusion of evidence that includes field sobriety tests, statements made by the defendant, and the results of any chemical tests. Roadblock sobriety testing is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, and chemical tests of breath, blood, or urine are firmly established to be a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes.

An experienced DUI / DWI defense attorney will argue that without a warrant or probable cause, all of this evidence must be suppressed. The prosecutor then bears the burden of proving that the search of the defendant and the seizure of the sample were the product of a lawful arrest.

Even though sobriety checkpoints have been sanctioned by the courts, not all drunk driving checkpoints are conducted according to established guidelines. Ultimately, evidence obtained at an improperly conducted sobriety checkpoint can be challenged. The first step is to consult with a California lawyer who concentrates on drunk driving defense.

The consequences for a DUI conviction can be grave – many drivers receive substantial fines, jail sentences, and license suspensions. However, many courts have developed alternative sentencing programs that give authorities greater flexibility in meting out punishment. An experienced California attorney from the Kavinoky Law Firm who focuses on drunk driving defense can explain the types of alternative sentencing available in some cases.

Sentencing alternatives are typically designed to help as well as punish the driver. Alternative sentences allow DUI drivers to retain their jobs and seek treatment for alcoholism, if needed – opportunities that are rarely available in county jail.

Some sentencing alternatives will allow good time/work time custody credits. Good time/work time custody credits are hour-for-hour exchanges of alternative sentencing against the hours that would have otherwise been spent in county jail.

Some types of alternative sentencing available include community service, freeway cleanup, electronic monitoring, sober living environments, alcohol and drug rehabilitation, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and participation in a MADD Victim Impact program.

Other sentencing alternatives include ignition interlock devices – machines attached to vehicles which require drivers to blow into a breath detector before starting the car – and the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor, or SCRAM, which measures alcohol by way of a device attached to the DUI offender’s ankle.

Another option is work furlough, which allows a DUI offender to go to work during the day and check into a dormitory-style housing facility at night. Some defendants may be eligible for work release, which allows the offender to work at an approved location and return home at night.

Some offenders are allowed to serve jail sentences at “weekend jails” at local police stations rather than county jails. Many local police departments will “rent out” their jail cells to DUI offenders overnight or for a weekend.

Because of the harsh consequences that drunk driving defendants face, alternative sentencing options can be an attractive alternative to incarceration. An experienced California DUI / DWI lawyer will review each case individually to determine whether sentencing alternatives may be available.

California Marijuana Laws – Driving patterns associated with marijuana impairment

Driving under the influence of marijuana is illegal – period. However, it is often difficult for an officer to specifically detect marijuana as being the reason why one is driving in a particular manner. Unlike alcohol, marijuana use, by itself, rarely invites specific driving patterns that are noticeable and, as a result, committing any traffic violation could ultimately lead to a driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) investigation. When charged with driving under the influence of drugs, it is vital that the accused hires an experienced criminal defense lawyer who understands exactly how marijuana affects the body and driving so that he or she can successfully defend the accused.

Marijuana, quite frankly, isn’t believed to be nearly as harmful as alcohol when it comes to its effects on driving. If mixed with other drugs or alcohol, or consumed in very high quantities, the risks to oneself and other drivers increase. However, most studies that have been conducted reveal that marijuana doesn’t truly impair driving and that drivers who have used marijuana are no more likely to be at fault in fatal or non-fatal accidents than drug-free drivers. In fact, it has been reported that some drivers may be able to improve their driving performance by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment.

Nonetheless, there is also a belief that marijuana impairs balance and coordination, both of which are believed to be necessary in order to safely drive a car. Law enforcement studies reveal that marijuana use may lead to impaired performance on driving simulator tasks, both on open and closed driving courses, a decrease in one’s ability to handle his or her car, slower reaction times and a possible inability to correctly estimate time and distance. As a result, individuals who are unable to maintain a consistent distance between their car and other cars or who appear to be falling asleep may raise suspicions of driving under the influence – but to say that those symptoms are necessarily marijuana related would simply be a guess, as they could also be the result of impairment due to any drug or could be the result of fatigue, illness, distraction or any number of other legitimate conditions.

If ultimately arrested for driving under the influence of “drugs” (an officer is not required to state what drug he or she is arresting the driver for using, unless the officer is a DRE – a drug recognition expert) and marijuana is detected by a chemical test after the fact, it is very likely that the officer’s testimony at trial will include information about how the driver displayed slower reaction times, impairment in his or her motor coordination and a lack of vigilance, all things that would have had an effect on his or her driving.

Driving under the influence of marijuana will more often than not only be suspected once alcohol is ruled out as an impairing factor. Physical signs and symptoms will be observed, field sobriety tests (FSTs) will be administered and, in an effort to justify the stop, the officer will determine that the individual had been driving drunk. Once a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device – an on-site breath test –reveals that alcohol is not an issue, the officer may call upon a DRE to do a drug investigation or may simply choose to arrest the driver for D.U.I.D. Either way, “driving patterns consistent with marijuana use” will only be addressed when the officer looks back on why he or she stopped the driver and tries to convince the judge and jury that it was because the driver displayed driving that displayed signs of impairment. The savvy criminal attorney knows, however, that he or she can challenge this testimony, as there truly are no driving patterns associated with this particular drug.

The unsurpassed attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm specialize in driving under the influence of marijuana cases and have mastered the defenses that are most successful in helping their clients charged with this offense receive favorable results. To learn more, contact these outstanding lawyers today for a free consultation.