California Criminal Defense Attorney – Traffic Accidents

A DUI / DWI charge in California actually results in two separate cases. A driver faces a California DMV case and a California criminal case. Each case must be dealt with as soon as possible in order to avoid unnecessary negative repercussions. A qualified lawyer who focuses on drunk driving defense can handle both aspects of the case. In California DMV cases a person arrested on suspicion of drunk driving has ten days within the date of arrest to request a DMV hearing or the Department of Motor Vehicles will automatically begin a process of suspending the person’s license to drive.

In the criminal case people will face enhanced sentences for causing a traffic accident while driving under the influence. The driver does not have to enter a guilty plea. An accomplished and experienced DUI / DWI attorney can fight the case and win. Oftentimes it takes costly resources to fight a drunk driving case, and the issues are complex, but it is possible to win a case with the right legal counsel with a great strategy for success.

When a driver is convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in California, he or she can face additional sentence enhancing charges. The most common allegations made for such sentencing enhancements are speeding, having children in the car, or causing an injury or traffic accident. If a driver is convicted on these charges, the court is likely to hand down a harsh punishment. Because of the staggering penalties that one may face if convicted of sentence enhancing charges, it is wise to consult with a California criminal defense attorney to find out how you can fight or settle the charges.

When a person who is accused of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs causes an accident or causes an accident that injures another person, he or she will be charged with a felony DUI. When a driver is convicted of both driving under the influence and of causing an accident, the court can order a 90 day jail sentence that must be served in addition to any other punishments handed down in the case.

Traffic accidents that cause injuries are taken seriously by prosecutors and judges. Sentences are tough because lawmakers are trying to send a strong message to people to avoid the roads when they are intoxicated.

Prosecutors may offer a plea bargain to a driver who caused an accident. When it is obvious that the driver did in fact cause the accident, it may be best to accept a deal from the prosecutor. When one is accused of a sentence enhancing charge, it is best to consult with a California DUI / DWI attorney who is well versed in all aspects of drunk driving law. The law is complex and negotiations with prosecutors can depend on knowledge of such complexities. Sentence enhancing charges are serious and should not be tackled without the help of a competent attorney who may be able to have charges reduced or dismissed by way of compromise.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Investigation

There is an abundance of circumstances that can lead to an arrest for a California DUI / DWI. 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 driving under the influence 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 breath is 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 / DWI 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 or DWI lawyer 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 DWI 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 / DWI 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..

Superior Court Of California, County of Santa Clara

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.

Downtown Superior Court
191 N First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

Hall of Justice
190 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110

Terraine Courthouse (Drug Court)
115 Terraine Street, San Jose, CA 95113

Santa Clara Courthouse
1095 Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Sunnyvale Courthouse
605 W. El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, CA 94087

Palo Alto Courthouse
270 Grant Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306

South County Courthouse
12425 Monterey Road, San Martin, CA 95046

Notre Dame Courthouse
99 Notre Dame Avenue, San Jose, CA 95113

Los Gatos Courthouse
14205 Capri Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032

Traffic Court
935 Ruff Drive, San Jose, CA 95110

» Santa Clara 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

California Criminal Defense Attorney – Should the Defendant Testify?

Both the prosecutor and the defense attorney call numerous witnesses in a California DUI / DWI trial. In fact, the defense lawyer may call the defendant to the stand to testify. Whether to ask the defendant to testify is an extremely difficult question for a drunk driving criminal defense lawyer, and the correct answer depends on the facts of the case.

In many cases, it’s useful to have the defendant explain how an injury or illness, such as emphysema, chronic acid reflux, or diabetes could have impacted the results of a chemical test. The defendant’s testimony might excuse a chemical test refusal or help explain why the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) reading was artificially high.

Sometimes it’s helpful to have the accused driver testify merely so that they can make a connection with the jury. Jurors are instructed that they may not interpret the fact that the defendant did not testify as a sign of guilt, but jurors are human, and sometimes cannot put their personal feelings aside. Therefore, jurors may conclude that the defendant didn’t take the stand because he or she is guilty. An experienced DUI / DWI criminal defense lawyer will weigh the risk of having the defendant testify against this possibility.

However, there are also excellent reasons to keep the accused driver off the stand. Some defendants are better off not being cross-examined by the prosecution. Some drivers might be nervous, emotional, or less than truthful on the stand. This allows the prosecutor to score points against the defense’s own witness.

In some cases it’s critical that the accused driver not testify because he or she was extremely intoxicated at the time of arrest, and may not remember many details about the encounter with police. Such a driver can derail a carefully crafted defense strategy and spell a guilty verdict for the defendant.

Experienced California DUI / DWI defense lawyers know when to have defendants testify and when they shouldn’t. In cases where it’s a good idea to have the driver take the stand, a skilled defense attorney will prepare that testimony carefully and thoroughly, to help the defendant avoid mistakes and anticipate any attacks from the prosecution on cross-examination.

Under the Influence of Drugs

Under California Health and Safety Code section 11550, it’s against the law to be under the influence of a controlled substance such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine or Ecstasy. It’s also illegal to be under the influence of prescription narcotics classified as Schedule III, IV or V unless they’re taken with a valid prescription.

A skilled California drug lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm will do everything possible to fight your under the influence of drugs case as well as any other criminal charges you face.

A violation of California H&S 1150 is a misdemeanor punishable by 90 days to one year in jail. However, if you meet certain qualifications, you may be eligible for alternative sentencing such as a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ), Prop. 36, or drug court.

If you are eligible for diversion and successfully complete the program, you can put the incident behind you without having a criminal record. Defendants completing California drug diversion are typically required to attend 12-step meetings, classes and/or counseling sessions, take periodic drug tests, and complete all requirements laid out by the court.

If you’re facing a California under the influence of drugs or narcotics charge, it’s in your best interests to aggressively fight the charges. Experienced California criminal defnese lawyers from The Kavinoky Law Firm will fight to protect your reputation and your freedom. Please contact a knowledgeable California drug lawyer today at 1.800.NO.CUFFS for a free consultation or fill out the following form to receive a Free Drug Case Evaluation.

California Vehicle Code VC 13351.85 – Towing Service: Required Suspension

13351.85. Upon receipt of a duly certified abstract of any court showing that a person has been convicted of a violation of Section 12110, the department shall suspend that person’s driving privilege for four months if the conviction was a first conviction, and for one year, if the conviction was a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of that section that occurred within seven years of the current conviction.

Added Sec. 2, Ch. 641, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001.

» Return to California Vehicle Codes

Note: Laws change frequently and thus the information provided should not be relied upon as legal advice. To be certain, contact a criminal defense attorney for a legal assistance.
www.NoCuffs.com is not liable for any misinformation that users obtain from using this site.

California Vehicle Code VC 13353.8 – Restricted License: Persons Under 21

13353.8. (a) After the department has issued an order suspending or delaying driving privileges as a result of a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23136, the department, upon the petition of the person affected, may review the order and may impose restrictions on the person’s privilege to drive based upon a showing of a critical need to drive , if the department determines that, within 10 years of the current violation of Section 23136, the person has not violated Section 23136 or been convicted of a separate violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section 23103, with a plea of guilty under Section 23103.5, or of Section 191.5 of, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code, and that the person’s driving privilege has not been suspended or revoked under Section 13353, 13353.1, or 13353.2 within that 10-year period.

(b) For purposes of this section, a conviction of an offense in a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Dominion of Canada that, if committed in this state, would be a violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23140, 23152, 23153, or Section 191.5 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code, is a conviction of that particular section of the Vehicle Code or Penal Code.

(c) As used in this section, "critical need to drive" means the circumstances that are required to be shown for the issuance of a junior permit pursuant to Section 12513.

(d) The restriction shall be imposed not earlier than the 31st day after the date the order of suspension became effective and shall remain in effect for the balance of the period of suspension or restriction in this section.

Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 254, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004.
Amended Sec. 10, Ch. 550, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005.

» Return to California Vehicle Codes

Note: Laws change frequently and thus the information provided should not be relied upon as legal advice. To be certain, contact a criminal defense attorney for a legal assistance.
www.NoCuffs.com is not liable for any misinformation that users obtain from using this site.

California Vehicle Code VC 13368 – Driver Training Requirement

13368. The department, as a condition to the reinstatement of a suspended license or the issuance of a new license to an individual whose prior license has been revoked, may require the individual to attend the program authorized by the provisions of Section 1659.

Added Ch. 447, Stats. 1965. Effective September 17, 1965.

» Return to California Vehicle Codes

Note: Laws change frequently and thus the information provided should not be relied upon as legal advice. To be certain, contact a criminal defense attorney for a legal assistance.
www.NoCuffs.com is not liable for any misinformation that users obtain from using this site.

California Vehicle Code VC 23575 – Authorized and Mandatory Installation of Ignition Interlock Device

23575. (a) (1) In addition to any other provisions of law, the court may require that a person convicted of a first offense violation of Section 23152 or 23153 to install a certified ignition interlock device on any vehicle that the person owns or operates and prohibit that person from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device. The court shall give heightened consideration to applying this sanction to a first offense ( )1 violator with 0.20 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at arrest, or with two or more prior moving traffic violations, or ( )2 to persons who refused the chemical tests at arrest. If the court orders the ignition interlock device restriction, the term shall be determined by the court for a period not to exceed three years from the date of conviction. The court shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall place the restriction in the person’s records in the Department of Motor Vehicles.

(2) The court shall require a person convicted of a violation of Section 14601.2 to install an ignition interlock device on any vehicle that the person owns or operates and prohibit the person from operating a motor vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device. The term of the restriction shall be determined by the court for a period not to exceed three years from the date of conviction. The court shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall place the restriction in the person’s records in the Department of Motor Vehicles.

(b) The court shall include on the abstract of conviction or violation submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles under Section 1803 or 1816, the requirement and term for the use of a certified ignition interlock device. The records of the department shall reflect mandatory use of the device for the term ordered by the court.

(c) The court shall advise the person that installation of an ignition interlock device on a vehicle does not allow the person to drive without a valid driver’s license.

(d) A person whose driving privilege is restricted by the court pursuant to this section shall arrange for each vehicle with an ignition interlock device to be serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate and monitor the operation of the device. The installer shall notify the court if the device is removed or indicates that the person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the person fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device. There is no obligation for the installer to notify the court if the person has complied with all of the requirements of this article.

(e) The court shall monitor the installation and maintenance of any ignition interlock device restriction ordered pursuant to subdivision (a) or (l). If a person fails to comply with the court order, the court shall give notice of the fact to the department pursuant to Section 40509.1.

(f) (1) Pursuant to Section 13352, if a person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and the offense occurred within 10 years of one or more separate violations of Section 23152 or 23153 that resulted in a conviction, the person may apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles for a restricted driver’s license pursuant to Section 13352 that prohibits the person from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device, certified pursuant to Section 13386. The restriction shall remain in effect for at least the remaining period of the original suspension or revocation and until all reinstatement requirements in Section 13352 are met.

(2) Pursuant to subdivision (g), the Department of Motor Vehicles shall immediately terminate the restriction issued pursuant to Section 13352 and shall immediately suspend or revoke the privilege to operate a motor vehicle of a person who attempts to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, who has the device removed prior to the termination date of the restriction, or who fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device ordered pursuant to Section 13352. The privilege shall remain suspended or revoked for the remaining period of the originating suspension or revocation and until all reinstatement requirements in Section 13352 are met.

(g) A person whose driving privilege is restricted by the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to Section 13352 shall arrange for each vehicle with an ignition interlock device to be serviced by the installer at least once every 60 days in order for the installer to recalibrate the device and monitor the operation of the device. The installer shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles if the device is removed or indicates that the person has attempted to remove, bypass, or tamper with the device, or if the person fails three or more times to comply with any requirement for the maintenance or calibration of the ignition interlock device. There is no obligation on the part of the installer to notify the department or the court if the person has complied with all of the requirements of this section.

(h) Nothing in this section permits a person to drive without a valid driver’s license.

(i) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall include information along with the order of suspension or revocation for repeat offenders informing them that after a specified period of suspension or revocation has been completed, the person may either install an ignition interlock device on any vehicle that the person owns or operates or remain with a suspended or revoked driver’s license.

(j) Pursuant to this section, an out-of-state resident who otherwise would qualify for an ignition interlock device restricted license in California shall be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle in California unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning ignition interlock device. An ignition interlock device is not required to be installed on any vehicle owned by the defendant that is not driven in California.

(k) If a person has a medical problem that does not permit the person to breathe with sufficient strength to activate the device, then that person shall only have the suspension option.

(l) This section does not restrict a court from requiring installation of an ignition interlock device and prohibiting operation of a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device for a ( )3 person to whom subdivision (a) or (b) does not apply. The term of the restriction shall be determined by the court for a period not to exceed three years from the date of conviction. The court shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1803, of the terms of the restrictions in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1804. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall place the restriction in the person’s records in the Department of Motor Vehicles.

(m) For the purposes of this section, "vehicle" does not include a motorcycle until the state certifies an ignition interlock device that can be installed on a motorcycle. Any person subject to an ignition interlock device restriction shall not operate a motorcycle for the duration of the ignition interlock device restriction period.

(n) For the purposes of this section, "owned" means solely owned or owned in conjunction with another person or legal entity. For purposes of this section, "operates" includes operating vehicles that are not owned by the person subject to this section.

(o) For the purposes of this section, bypass includes, but is not limited to, either of the following:

1. Any combination of failing or not taking the ignition interlock device rolling retest three consecutive times.
2. Any incidence of failing or not taking the ignition interlock device rolling retest, when not followed by an incidence of passing the ignition interlock rolling retest prior to turning off the ( )4 vehicle’s engine.

Amended Sec. 21, Ch. 756, Stats. 1998. Effective January 1, 1999. Operative July 1, 1999. Supersedes Ch. 118.
Amended and renumbered from 23246 Sec. 27, Ch. 22, Stats. 1999. Effective May 25, 1999.
Amended Sec. 11, Ch. 1064, Stats. 2000. Effective September 30, 2000.
Amended Sec. 23, Ch. 473, Stats. 2001. Effective January 1, 2002.
Amended Sec. 18, Ch. 550, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005. Operative September 20, 2005.
Amended Sec. 202, Ch. 22, Stats. 2005. Effective January 1, 2006.
The 2005 amendment added the italicized material, and at the point(s) indicated, deleted the following:

1. "violators"
2. "of"
3. "persons"
4. "vehicles’s engine off"

» Return to California Vehicle Codes

Note: Laws change frequently and thus the information provided should not be relied upon as legal advice. To be certain, contact a criminal defense attorney for a legal assistance.
www.NoCuffs.com is not liable for any misinformation that users obtain from using this site.

Defenses to Criminal Charges

Did you know that dental work can trap alcohol in the mouth, and cause a falsely high breath test reading?

Did you know that speeding, by itself, is consistent with sobriety and not intoxication?

Do you know what Field Sobriety Tests are designed to demonstrate, and how the results can be turned into favorable evidence for you?

The prosecutor and police will attempt to prove the accused is guilty of DUI by describing sloppy driving, poor performance on the field sobriety tests, and by introducing the results of the chemical testing (blood, breath or urine) if a test is taken. If there is no chemical test, the prosecutor will attempt to use a refusal to take a chemical test as “consciousness of guilt.”

The defenses to the DUI charges will generally fall into these same three categories: driving evidence, field sobriety tests, and chemical testing. Remember that a conviction requires 12 jurors to agree on the guilt of the accused. A skilled criminal defense attorney is the best hope for creating doubt in these areas, rendering the prosecution’s evidence an unreliable basis for the jury to return a guilty verdict.

A criminal defense attorney can highlight those areas where the driving by the accused was consistent with their being sober at the time. Turning normally, parking properly, and signaling appropriately: those driving patterns that are consistent with sobriety can go a long way towards presenting the complete picture, and rebutting the prosecution’s case.

Every place the police report is silent is a fertile area to demonstrate the innocence of the accused. Everything the accused didn’t do can be the best evidence of their sobriety, and the basis for a “not guilty” verdict. For example, if the police report does not say the accused fumbled with their driver’s license, a skilled criminal defense attorney can make points by illustrating that an intoxicated person might, but that this accused did not.

An experienced criminal defense attorney will know how to point out the faults of whichever chemical test is involved, or the legitimate reasons why a chemical test was refused. There are many reasons for falsely high breath tests. The accused may have burped prior to taking the test. The testing device may be improperly calibrated. Electrical interference from police radios can skew the results. A blood sample may have improper levels of preservatives. The point is that there are many ways to chip away at the trustworthiness of the prosecution’s evidence, and prevent the prosecution from meeting their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you or anyone you care about has been accused of DUI, please consult a Southern California DUI Lawyer right away.