Category: Weapons Offenses

Weapons Offenses | No Cuffs

New California Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that criminal suspects’ statements can be used against them if they fail to invoke their rights.

The court ruled 5-4 that criminal suspects have a duty to invoke the rights outlined in the historic Miranda vs. Arizona decision, including the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. In the past, the court held that the government had the burden of demonstrating that a suspect had knowingly and intelligently waived his rights.

Tuesday’s ruling addressed a Michigan case where a man was convicted of murder based largely on his one-word response to a question after nearly three hours of interrogation.  His conviction was overturned by an appeals court that ruled that using his answer to convict him violated his right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned that decision.
Our constitutional rights have eroded considerably in recent years, so it’s more important than ever to have a skilled defense lawyer on your side if you’re under investigation for a criminal charge.  The top California defense attorneys of The Kavinoky Law Firm are well-known for standing up for the rights of their clients, and will do everything possible to protect you during a criminal investigation. Contact a skilled California defense lawyer today at 1-800-NO-CUFFS for a free consultation.

A new year brings new laws in California, and 2010 is no exception.  There are a number of new laws on the books that impact convicted DUI drivers and certain individuals charged with California theft or other property crimes. Another new law increases the amount of time credit earned by certain inmates in California county jails and prisons.  Yet another new law prevents authorities from sending low-level, non-violent offenders back to prison for parole violations. As in every year, the list of new California laws is lengthy, so we’ve summarized the most noteworthy ones here. If you have any questions about any of these new laws and how they will affect your case, you can always contact The Kavinoky Law Firm at 1-800-NO-CUFFS.

Two new laws will impact many individuals convicted of DUI. AB 91 creates a pilot program that requires every driver convicted of DUI in Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento and Tulare counties – even first offenders – to install and use an ignition interlock device.  The law will remain in effect until 2016, when the pilot program may be extended and expanded to include other counties.

SB 598 is a bill that will allow DUI offenders to obtain restricted driver’s licenses sooner than they would otherwise if they install and use an ignition interlock device.  Convicted DUI drivers will still have a certain period of “hard” suspension when they are not allowed to drive at all, but that hard suspension will be shortened by installing an ignition interlock device.

A new law that takes effect January 25, 2010 increases the dollar amount that determines whether more than 30 theft and property crime offenses can be charged as felonies rather than misdemeanors.  For example, the threshold for a felony charge of writing a check with non-sufficient funds increased from $200 to $400. The limits for some offenses, such as theft of currency or jewelry, remain unchanged.

Certain individuals serving time in California county jails will earn more time credits than before under another new law that takes effect on January 25, 2010. In the past, inmates in county jails earned two days of credit for every four days spent in custody. Under the new law, they will earn two days of credit for every two days served.  Some defendants are excluded from earning the additional credit for time served. They include individuals convicted of violent felonies who are limited to a 15-percent reduction credit under California Penal Code section 2933.1; those required to register as sex offenders; and individuals convicted of serious felonies or with prior convictions for serious felonies. Up to six weeks of additional credit can also be earned by many state prison inmates who complete certain prison programs.

Another new law that takes effect January 25, 2010 prevents certain individuals from being returned to prison for parole violations. The individual cannot be returned to prison for a parole violation if all of the following are true: he or she is not required to register as a sex offender, wasn’t convicted of a serious felony, doesn’t have a prior conviction for a serious felony, wasn’t convicted of a sex crime, wasn’t found guilty of a serious disciplinary offense, isn’t a validated gang member or associate, didn’t refuse to sign a notification of parole conditions, and wasn’t determined in an evaluation to have a high risk of reoffending.

Understanding California’s complex criminal statutes and the many new laws that are passed each year is difficult. Fortunately, the knowledgeable California defense attorneys of The Kavinoky Law Firm ensure that they’re up on the latest developments in the law, so that you don’t have to.  If you have any questions about any aspect of your California criminal case, please don’t hesitate to call us today at 1-800-NO-CUFFS.

New California Driving Laws for 2009

As of January 1, 2009, a host of new driving laws went on the books in California, and being aware of these statutes will help you avoid trouble with the law in the New Year. As always, if you have any questions about any California Vehicle Code, feel free to contact an attorney from The Kavinoky Law Firm at 1.877.466.2833 for more information.

Perhaps the most talked-about new law is California’s ban on texting. As of January 1, it’s against the law to type, send, and read electronic messages while behind the wheel. Like California’s law requiring the use of hands-free cell phones while driving, the new text-messaging ban carries a $20 fine for a first offense and a $50 fine for a second offense, but the state’s “penalty assessment” means the fine will be significantly higher.

Even more importantly, violating either of these laws gives police probable cause to pull you over, which can lead to more serious charges. These types of relatively minor violations can result in an arrest for DUI or another serious offense.

Another new law impacts drivers who are on probation for a California DUI conviction. Under the new zero-tolerance law, drivers on probation for a prior DUI conviction who have any measurable amount of alcohol in their systems will have their driver’s licenses suspended.

California has also lowered the threshold for ignition interlock devices, or IIDs, in DUI cases. In the past, California law required that judges give “heightened consideration” to ordering DUI drivers with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .20 percent or greater to use an ignition interlock device. The new law lowers the threshold for an IID, which prevents a car from starting if the driver cannot provide an alcohol-free breath sample, to .15 percent.

Beginning in July 2009, drivers who are caught driving after having their licenses suspended for a prior DUI conviction will also be required to use an ignition interlock device. This new law also transfers authority over the use of ignition interlock devices from the courts to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

New California legislation also requires drivers convicted of DUI or alcohol-related reckless driving – also known as “wet-reckless” – to attend a nine-month alcohol-education program if they’ve been convicted of another DUI or wet-reckless offense within the past decade.

Other changes to the law include new criminal penalties for forging Clean Air stickers, harsher penalties for those who make frivolous 911 calls, and changes to the law that governs where GPS units can be mounted. In the past, mounting the unit on the windshield was against the law. Now drivers can mount the devices in a 7-inch square on the lower passenger side of the windshield or a 5-inch square on the lower corner of the driver’s side.

By keeping yourself informed about California’s ever-evolving vehicle and criminal codes, you can better prepare yourself to stay out of trouble in 2009. And should you ever need us, the experienced California defense lawyers of The Kavinoky Law Firm are here to help. You can contact us at 1.877.466.2833 for answers to all of your questions about California vehicle and criminal codes.

 

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CHARGES FOR ATV DRIVERS

Friday, June 30, 2006

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE CHARGES FOR ATV DRIVERS

WOODLAND HILLS, Calif. — Fans of sun and sand are gearing up for fun summer weekends full of riding ATVs and drinking with friends.  However, those who enjoy a few beers before driving an all-terrain vehicle may be in for an unfortunate surprise:  DUI charges can be brought against them, and those charges can be devastating.

In recent years the dangers and illegality of boating under the influence have been emphasized, and many people now know that they can be arrested for drinking and boating. However, many people do not realize that driving an all-terrain vehicle while impaired is just as dangerous and just as illegal.

“The punishments for driving an ATV while intoxicated are identical to those for driving a car under the influence of alcohol,” said California criminal defense attorney Wendy Wittenberg.  “I’ve dealt with many defendants who were arrested and charged with DUI while driving ATVs.  They were all shocked.  They had no idea that it was illegal, or that they could lose their driving privileges and serve jail time.”

According to California law, a person driving any vehicle on a public highway can be arrested for driving under the influence if his or her blood alcohol content measures .08 percent or more.  If convicted, this person may have to serve jail time, participate in a DUI school and pay fines.  The Department of Motor Vehicles can suspend the defendant’s Class C driver license even without a conviction.

“Of course, when people are arrested for DUI while driving an ATV, many times they argue that they weren’t on a public roadway.  Unfortunately for these defendants, sand dunes are considered public roadways for the purpose of California driving under the influence laws,” said Wittenberg.  “This means that anyone driving in a sand dune while intoxicated can be arrested for DUI.”

Wittenberg has handled many ATV DUI arrests, and she is beginning to see a trend.  “More and more clients are calling me to help defend DUI charges while driving ATVs.  It probably is not due to more people drinking and driving, but more intense surveillance.”

These arrests can happen in a number of ways.  Many times, ATV drivers are turned in by rangers at the dunes.  These rangers will investigate the situation, and then contact the California Highway Patrol or local police department to report a suspicious driver.  In other instances, citizens can call the arresting officers with information about a suspected drunken driver.  The officers will then drive to the scene to investigate the situation and to possibly arrest the offender.

In addition to being illegal, driving an ATV while intoxicated is dangerous.  In the last 20 years, there have been more than 300 ATV-related deaths in California.  It is assumed that at least some of these accidents were due to intoxication of the driver.

“It’s important to use common sense about safety while driving in the dunes,” said Wittenberg.  “Drinking and driving is never a good idea, no matter what vehicle is driven.”

Wendy Wittenberg is an attorney at California-based criminal defense firm The Kavinoky Law Firm.  The attorneys of The Kavinoky Law Firm focus on customer service, and they take pride in their one-on-one approach with clients. They work tirelessly to have the best reputation of all criminal defense firms in the state.  www.NoCuffs.com

###

For more information, contact Angie Rupert at (818) 346-4646 or [email protected].
Prepared by Angie Rupert.

Should the Defendant Testify?

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 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

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

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

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

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

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.

California Vehicle Code VC 23556 – Conditions of Probation: First Conviction

California Vehicle Code VC 23556 – Conditions of Probation: First Conviction

23556. (a) (1) If the court grants probation to any person punished under Section 23554, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600 and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court shall impose as a condition of probation that the person be confined in the county jail for at least five days but not more than one year and pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390) but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

(2) The person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended by the department under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver’s license to the court in accordance with Section 13550.

(b) (1) In a county where the county alcohol program administrator has certified, and the board of supervisors has approved, a program or programs, the court shall also impose as a condition of probation that the driver shall participate in, and successfully complete, an alcohol and other drug education and counseling program, established pursuant to Section 11837.3 of the Health and Safety Code, as designated by the court.

(2) In any county where the board of supervisors has approved and the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has licensed an alcohol and other drug education and counseling program, the court shall also impose as a condition of probation that the driver enroll in, participate in, and successfully complete, a driving-under-the-influence program licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, in the driver’s county of residence or employment, as designated by the court. For the purposes of this paragraph, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of, an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit may not be given to any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.

(3) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol concentration was less than 0.20 percent, by weight, to participate for three months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 30 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

(4) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol concentration was 0.20 percent or more, by weight, or who refused to take a chemical test, to participate for ( )1 nine months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least ( )2 60 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

(c) (1) The court shall revoke the person’s probation pursuant to Section 23602, except for good cause shown, for the failure to enroll in, participate in, or complete a program specified in subdivision (b).

(2) The court, in establishing reporting requirements, shall consult with the county alcohol program administrator. The county alcohol program administrator shall coordinate the reporting requirements with the department and with the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. That reporting shall ensure that all persons who, after being ordered to attend and complete a program, may be identified for either (A) failure to enroll in, or failure to successfully complete, the program, or (B) successful completion of the program as ordered.

(d) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing that the driving privilege shall not be restored until the person has provided proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code.

(e) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.

Added Sec. 84, Ch. 118, Stats. 1998. Effective January 1, 1999. Operative July 1, 1999.
Amended Sec. 29, Ch. 545, Stats. 2002. Effective January 1, 2003.
Amended Sec. 21, Ch. 551, Stats. 2004. Effective January 1, 2005. Operative September 20, 2005.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 164, Stats. 2005. Effective January 1, 2006.
The 2005 amendment added the italicized material, and at the point(s) indicated, deleted the following:

  1. "six"
  2. "45"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.