Superior Court Of California, County of San Mateo

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.

Northern Branch
1050 Mission Road, South San Francisco CA 94080

Central Branch
800 North Humboldt Street, San Mateo, CA 94401

Southern Branch
400 County Center (formerly 401 Marshall Street), Redwood City, CA 94063

Juvenile Branch
21 Tower Road, San Mateo, CA 94402

» San Mateo 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

Court Punishment: Jail

A DUI / DWI lawyer will often work to get the charges and the punishment against a client reduced as much as possible. If the charge is felony drunk driving an attorney will commonly ask for a reduced charge of misdemeanor DUI / DWI. When the charge is misdemeanor driving under the influence, a lawyer will attempt to negotiate for lesser charges such a wet-reckless or a dry-reckless. In many cases, the nature of the charge will reflect directly upon the sentence. Whenever there is a jail sentence, the time of the sentence may be lessened if the charges can be reduced.

A person who is convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or driving while intoxicated may quite possibly face a jail sentence. The jail sentence will depend on various factors including the abilities and tenacity of the DUI / DWI lawyer. Prior convictions are often major considerations in determining the length of a prison sentence.

The harshest penalties are reserved for felony DUIs. Felony drunk driving cases include four time offenders and drinking and driving involving injuries to others. On a first offense involving an injury, the jail sentence will be five days to one year in jail if the driver accepts probation. If the driver chooses to decline probation, he or she will face between 90 days and one year in jail. A second driving under the influence offense within the 10 year “lookback” period will result in either a 30 day in jail term or 120 days to one year in jail. If the driver declines probation the 30 day sentence will not be available.

A first time offender won’t likely serve jail time for a simple misdemeanor. The typical first offense will carry no minimum jail sentence. Although there is no minimum, the judge may sentence the driver to 48 hours to six months in jail. An experienced California DUI / DWI attorney can generally help a first time drunk driving offender avoid jail time if there are no special or extraordinary circumstances. This rule applies when a driver agrees to go on probation. If a driver seeks to avoid probation they will face a sentence of 96 hours to six months in jail.

Second time drunk drivers within the 10 year “lookback” period who are willing to accept the conditions of probation can face a 96 hour sentence, a 10 day sentence, or up to year in jail. When the second time offender rejects probation he or she will face 90 days to one year in jail. When a third time offender accepts probation they will face 120 days to one year in jail. When the third time offender rejects the offer of probation they too will face a sentence between 120 days and one year in jail.

At the end of the day, the quality of one’s criminal defense attorney can greatly affect a prison sentence. Judges have discretion to sentence a person to the minimum or maximum sentence, or something in between. Oftentimes it is the lawyer that convinces the judge to be lenient in sentencing.

DMV Penalties

These penalties relate to persons over 21 years of age, who were not operating a commercial vehicle. For additional information, please complete a CASE EVALUATION FORM.

First Offense: Where a chemical test was performed, and the results show a BAC of .08 or more, the DMV will suspend the driver’s license for four months.

Where a chemical test is refused, the DMV will suspend for one year. In a first time DUI case where a chemical test is taken, a restricted license may be obtained. Please consult a Southern California DUI Lawyer for details on obtaining a restricted license.

Second Offense (within 10 years of prior offense): Where the chemical test is performed, and results are .08 or greater, DMV will suspend for one year. Where chemical test is refused, two-year revocation.

Third Offense (within 10 years of prior offenses): With chemical test resulting in .08 or greater, two-year revocation; with refusal, three-year revocation.

Fourth Offense (within 10 years of prior offenses): The punishment is the same, whether a chemical test is taken or not. In either case, there is a four-year revocation of driving privileges.

Take note: these license suspensions/revocations are separate and apart from any action taken by the court; these are only the California DMV’s punishment. Curiously, the courts have no problem imposing double punishment in the field of DUI law; that is, both the court and the DMV are taking the person’s driver’s license in separate processes related to the same event.

In any other area of the law, this would be considered double jeopardy. With DUI’s the court considers the court’s suspension to be punishment, but the DMV’s suspension to merely be an administrative sanction. Tell that to the person who just suffered an “administrative sanction.” As far as they are concerned, it is a punishment. There is a section provided that has more information on court-imposed punishment.

Also, be aware that any suspension or revocation imposed by the court does not usually start to run until after the DMV suspension is over with. That means that these suspensions run consecutively, not concurrently.

If you have any questions about the DMV suspensions, or any other aspect of DUI defense, please contact a Southern California DUI Lawyer that is experienced in defending DUI cases.

Drivers under investigation for DUI / DWI typically take field sobriety tests before being arrested. Although many drivers hope they will avoid arrest by “passing” the tests, field sobriety tests exist only to justify an arrest and gather evidence for a court case.

There are two kinds of field sobriety tests: Standardized and Non-standardized. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is one of three field sobriety tests standardized and recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). A skilled DUI / DWI attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm can successfully challenge the results of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test or other field sobriety tests.

Horizontal gaze nystagmus is an involuntary jerking of the eyes as they move from side to side. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test is based on the theory that the greater the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC), the sooner the eyes will begin jerking as they move from side to side.

The officer instructs the driver to follow a small object such as the tip of a pen using only the eyes. Police watch for uneven eye movement or sustained jerking when the eye reaches the furthest point. The officer also will make note if the eye begins jerking before it reaches a 45-degree angle.

Each of these three occurrences counts as a “clue” when observed in each eye. If the officer notes at least four of the six signs, he or she will conclude that there is a 77 percent chance that the driver’s BAC is greater than .10 percent, and the individual will be placed under arrest for drunk driving.

Although it is standardized by the NHTSA, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test is far from foolproof. Nystagmus, or involuntary jerking of the eye, occurs in every individual, regardless of whether he or she has been drinking. Alcohol and drugs may intensify the nystagmus effect, but so can many other factors, including injury or illness.

When an individual drinks alcohol, mental impairment always occurs before physical impairment. Physical impairment can be masked by those with a high tolerance for alcohol, but mental impairment cannot be hidden. Therefore, the mere presence of physical impairment such as involuntary eye jerking doesn’t mean the driver was under the influence of alcohol.

Some officers don’t even administer the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test properly, and their conclusions may be inadmissible in court. The driver’s head and body must be facing the object, so if the officer conducted the test through the driver’s-side window, the results may be inadmissible because the driver’s head was turned at a 45-degree angle.

Luckily for accused drunk drivers, field sobriety tests don’t always hold up in court. The officer’s conclusions can be successfully rebutted during cross-examination. An experienced California DUI / DWI attorney can effectively challenge the results of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test and create reasonable doubt concerning the driver’s guilt.

Drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI in California are required by law to take a chemical test to measure blood alcohol content (BAC). Drivers suspected of being under the influence of alcohol are given a choice between a blood or a breath test. Drivers believed to be under the influence of drugs must take a blood or urine test.

Urine tests are considered the least reliable of the three types of chemical tests available. Fortunately, urine tests can be effectively challenged in drunk driving or driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases. The experienced defense lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm know the inherent flaws in urine tests and will use that knowledge to craft an aggressive defense strategy.

Urine tests are typically implemented only when a motorist is suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. However, urine tests may be given in drunk driving cases when breath or blood tests are not available.

California law dictates that if a urine test is given, the individual must be provided enough privacy to maintain dignity while still ensuring the accuracy of the sample. When the urine test is requested, drivers are advised to empty their bladders, wait 20 minutes, and then go again.

Urine tests have strict protocols but are prone to human error. Police and technicians routinely fail to follow the required procedures, making test results unreliable.

Urine testing is the least reliable method of testing for blood alcohol content. Because the test involves water rather than blood, the result is usually inflated. The concentration of alcohol in the urine is approximately 1.33 times the concentration of alcohol in the blood at the same time.

Urine tests are equally unreliable in DUID cases, because it’s impossible to determine when a drug was used. They can only detect metabolites, or inactive leftover traces of a drug. For example, a driver who smoked marijuana on a Friday night could test positive the following Tuesday, long after the drug has ceased to have any effect. Obviously, what a driver did on Friday has nothing to do with his or her fitness to drive on Tuesday.

The flaws inherent in urine testing for drugs have been scientifically documented. A study performed by the National Institute of Drug Abuse found that 20 percent of the labs surveyed mistakenly reported the presence of illegal drugs in drug-free urine samples.

Urinalysis also tends to confuse similar chemical compounds. For example, codeine and non-narcotic cough syrup have been known to produce positive results for heroin. By the same token, Advil has produced false positives for marijuana, and Nyquil for amphetamines.

Urine testing is extremely unreliable in both drunk driving and DUID cases, so it’s possible to effectively challenge the test results. A California lawyer with experience defending DUID and DUI / DWI cases can attack the integrity of urine tests and other types of chemical testing, and can effectively fight a drinking and driving or driving under the influence of drugs charge.

Experienced Los Angeles DUI Attorneys

It is important to hire a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer when faced with a Los Angeles criminal charge. Not all criminal lawyers are the same. You want to make sure that you are given all the resources possible to resolve your criminal case with minimal repercussions. At the Kavinoky Law Firm, you not only get the knowledge and experience to win, you get an entire team working around the clock on your behalf.  Our main objective is to remove all the burdens off your shoulders. Let us handle the case, so you can sleep well at night.
There are many aspects and procedures that can be challenged to help get you off your criminal charge. We spare no expense to make sure we have uncovered all avenues of your Los Angeles criminal case.  We understand the impact of a criminal charge on your life and livelihood.

We focus on a plethora of Los Angeles criminal charges including:
Assault
Appeals
Battery
Bench Warrants
Crimes Against Children
Domestic Violence
DUI
DUI Drugs
Drug Crimes
Drug Possession
Embezzlement
Expungement
Federal Cases
Fraud
Gang Offense
Grand Theft
Investigatory
Manslaughter
Murder
Robbery
Sex Crimes
Violent Crimes
Weapons Crimes
White Collar Crimes

Big-Firm Resources, Small-Firm Feel

• The Kavinoky Law Firm has more than a dozen lawyers and a support staff of 25.

• We employ a team approach: Your defense strategy will be engineered by founding lawyer Darren Kavinoky, Senior Supervising Attorney Joel Koury, Northern California Managing Attorney Michael Meehan, and their handpicked team. The Kavinoky Law Firm has more than a century of combined legal experience, and over 500 completed jury trials.

• We are one of the largest law firms in California that concentrates on defending cases involving alcohol and drugs. This translates into greater resources for your defense.

• We employ a specialized Intranet Toolkit to ensure all of our attorneys effectively collaborate, share information, and work in concert.

• All of our attorneys use Blackberries or Droids. This means that you’ll receive an immediate response to your emails and phone calls and outstanding customer service.

• We have a network of attorneys throughout the United States for cases that involve issues that cross state lines, such as foreign prior convictions, or those involving out-of-state driver’s licenses that could be impacted by an action in California.

• We conduct frequent comprehensive case-evaluation roundtables, where a “mastermind” group of lawyers each review your case, and come up with the best approach that is designed to achieve the best possible result in your criminal case.

• We have an-house appellate department to address writs and appeals. We are willing and equipped to fight (and have successfully fought), significant legal issues all the way to the Supreme Court.

• We employ a team approach, which translates into more resources to come up with the winning strategy in your case.

Our Los Angeles Offices:
• Encino
• Los Angeles

 

We proudly cover these areas of Greater Los Angeles:
Acton, Agoura, Agoura Hills , Alhambra, Antelope Valley, Arcadia, Artesia, Avalon, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Bell, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Bradbury, Brentwood, Burbank, Calabasas, Camarillo, Carson, Claremont, Commerce, Canoga Park, Century City, Chatsworth, Commerce, Compton, Covina, Cudahy, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, East Los Angeles, El Monte, El Segundo, Encino, Gardena, Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Industry, Irwindale, La Canada-Flintridge, Lake Balboa, Lakewood, La Mirada, Lancaster, La Puente, La Verne, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles , Lynwood, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Maywood, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Newhall, North Hollywood, Northridge, Norwalk, Oxnard, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Quartz Hill, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach , Reseda, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, Studio City, Sylmar, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Three Points, Torrance, Valencia, Van Nuys, Ventura, Vernon, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westwood, West Los Angeles, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills.

California Supreme Court Allows Traffic Stops Based on Uncorroborated Tips

In a setback for privacy and civil rights, the California Supreme Court has ruled that police can use anonymous tips to stop suspected drunk drivers even if the officer doesn’t spot any illegal activity. An attorney plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that a California Highway Patrol officer acted properly when he pulled over a San Joaquin Valley woman after an anonymous caller said her van was weaving, even though the officer witnessed no signs of impairment. The woman later failed a field sobriety test and was arrested for heroin possession.

The ruling gives police in California the broadest powers in the nation to pull over suspected drunk drivers and other motorists based only on anonymous tips. In recent months, the state has posted signs urging motorists to report suspected DUI / DWI drivers to the CHP. Those signs, coupled with the high court’s decision, open the door for abuse by drivers involved in road rage or grudges unrelated to criminal activity.

Three justices opposed the ruling, saying police should not be allowed to stop motorists without witnessing illegal activity. “One of the hallmarks of the liberty guaranteed to persons in this country is that agents of the government cannot arrest, seize or detain them without a good reason,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the minority.

The panel’s ruling comes on the heels of a string of high court decisions that erode the rights of criminal suspects across California and the nation. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that police can enter some DUI / DWI suspects’ homes without a warrant to administer chemical tests.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police can enter suspects’ homes without knocking if they have a valid search warrant. However, the justices also recently ruled that police cannot pat down a suspect for weapons based on an uncorroborated tip.

Defense attorneys decried the California Supreme Court’s ruling on anonymous tips as a setback for privacy and civil rights that may resonate for decades.

“Anyone can call in an anonymous tip for any reason,” said Darren T. Kavinoky, one of California’s top criminal defense attorneys. “This ruling essentially allows police to go on fishing expeditions in the vehicle of any driver unfortunate enough to be the target of an anonymous tipster.”

Despite the setback, motorists arrested for drunk driving or any other criminal offense involving an anonymous tip still have numerous options to launch an effective defense. An experienced California criminal defense attorney can challenge evidence on a number of fronts and dismantle a prosecutor’s case.

The top attorneys of the Kavinoky Law Firm are experienced in defending DUI / DWI cases and other criminal charges throughout California. The firm’s expert attorneys will develop an aggressive defense strategy to challenge charges of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, drug possession, or any other criminal offense.