Could Extending Last Call in California Increase DUI Incidences?

Many people know Nevada, particularly Las Vegas, as the obvious exception to widely accepted last call time of 2 a.m. and some know that a few states such as New York, Hawaii, and Alaska have later last calls than 2 a.m. California’s last call is 2 a.m. One senator hopes to extend the last call in certain California cities such as Los Angeles to 4 a.m.

Just to be clear before I move on, “last call” refers to the last time for which a bar or restaurant can sell alcohol to patrons.

The bill, which was introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener and entitled Let Our Communities Adjust Late Night Act, would allow municipalities to extend last call to 4 a.m. with the approval of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The bill provides the flexibility to allow an extension of last call to certain cities or “specific areas” of a town. It also would allow an extension only on certain days of the week or only on specific holidays.

A similar bill by Sen Mark Leno was rejected in 2013 by the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization.

Not so surprisingly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are opposed to extending the last call time just as they were back in 2013.

"MADD supports uniform closing times for establishments that serve alcohol to avoid creating the dangerous possibility that patrons will bar-hop for that one last drink — a dangerous scenario that all too often increases the risk of drunk driving," national spokeswoman for the group, Becky Iannotta, said in an email to LA Weekly.

According to Weiner, the extra two hours would provide an enormous amount of extra revenue to the hospitality industry in California. In a statement Weiner said that the law would allow cities to “benefit economically and culturally from a strong nightlife presence.”

Amongst the supporters of the bill is the California Restaurant Association and the California Music & Culture Association.

“Nightlife is a major economic and cultural driver in California,” said the California Music & Culture Association’s co-chair, Ben Bleiman, in a statement. “This bill represents a crucial opportunity for California’s cities and towns to choose to join the ranks of those across the country and the world offering truly world-class nightlife for their residents and visitors.”

The group Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety argued in 2013, when Sen. Leno attempted to introduce his bill, that staggering the last call times in California would lessen the burden on law enforcement and public transportation because not all bargoers and drunks would be hitting the streets at the same time.

 

Share


Source

Posted February 23, 2017, 11:15 am
Categories: dwi

How Much Marijuana Does It Take to Impair Driving?

A number of posts on this blog have addressed the problems encountered in trying to measure levels of marijuana — or, more accurately the active ingredient Tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") — in the blood of a person when he was driving.  See, for example, Oregon Legislative Study Criticizes "Per Se" DUI Marijuana Laws and Marijuana Legalization and the California DUI.   

More importantly, these and other posts have also raised the related but unanswered question:  How much marijuana in the human body does it take to render a driver unable to safely operate a motor vehicle in the manner of a sober person (the rough definition of "driving under the influence" or "driving while intoxicated")?  See New Efforts to Push Roadside Marijuana DUI Test

The following excerpts from a recent article in The Atlantic, entitled "When Are You Too Stoned To Drive?", provide an excellent analysis of these important issues: 


…We take for granted that not being able to walk a straight line or stand on one leg means that you’re drunk, and that being drunk means it’s unacceptably dangerous to drive. But there is no clear scientific consensus when it comes to smoking pot and driving. And few of the tools police officers have long relied on to determine whether a driver is too drunk to drive, like a breathalyzer, exist for marijuana…

Most (but not all) studies find that using pot impairs one’s ability to drive. However, overall, the impairment appears to be modest—akin to driving with a blood alcohol level of between .01 and .05, which is legal in all states. (The much greater risk is in combining pot with alcohol.) The increased crash risk with pot alone “is so small you can compare it to driving in darkness compared to driving in daylight,” says University of Oslo political scientist Rune Elvik, who conducted several major meta-analyses evaluating the risk of drugged driving…

When it comes to alcohol, science and the courts have long established a direct line between number of drinks, blood alcohol level, and crash risk. As one goes up, so do the others. Not so for pot. Scientists can’t say with confidence how much pot, in what concentration, used in what period of time, will reliably make someone “high.”…

Blood levels of THC—tetrahydrocannabinol, the chemical component of pot that makes you high—spike quickly after smoking and then decline rapidly in the hours afterwards, during the window when a smoker would feel most high. What’s more, regular smokers could have THC in their blood for days or weeks after smoking, when they are clearly no longer high.

Still, laws in 18 states tie drugged driving charges to whether drivers have THC (or related compounds) in their blood. Some states prohibit driving with any amount, and some specify a threshold modeled after the .08 limit states use for blood alcohol. But the lag time between being pulled over and being transported to a hospital for a blood draw—on average, more than two hours—can lead to false negatives, while the tolerance developed by regular users (and the tendency for THC to stick around in their bloodstreams) can lead to false positives. This is why, researchers say, blood THC laws make little sense… 


Scientific facts, however, have never prevented politicians from passing expedient and politically-popular laws, or police and prosecutors from enforcing them. 
 

Share


Source

Posted February 20, 2017, 11:28 am
Categories: dwi

Rare Disorder Causes DUI without Drinking

A woman, who requested to be called Sara to maintain confidentiality and protect her legal career, was arrested in 2015 for driving under the influence when she collided with a parked vehicle. It was later determined that she had a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent. Sara had been arrested for DUI before back when she was an admitted alcoholic. This time, however, was different. Sara, now a recovering alcoholic for nearly ten years, only drank orange juice.

Sara drank orange juice and lots of it, sometimes up to a gallon per day. That orange juice, however, might as well have been alcohol for Sara.

Sara suffers from auto-brewery syndrome. Yes, that is an actual medical condition albeit an extremely rare one. Auto-brewery syndrome causes a person’s body to produce extremely high levels of yeast in the digestive track. If you know anything about how beer is made, you’ll know that yeast eats the sugar that is extracted from boiling grains and then releases carbon dioxide and alcohol. See where I’m going? The yeast in Sara’s system ate the sugars from the orange juice and produced alcohol in Sara causing her to be intoxicated without having a sip of alcohol.

Shortly after she was diagnosed last July, Sara accepted a plea deal for a reduced charge of reckless driving with probation.

Sara estimates that she spent $25,000 fighting the drunk driving charge, with expenses including attorney fees and a privately commissioned polygraph test. She says she chose to take a deal rather than go to trial because a conviction could have been career-ending.

“As soon as I stopped the orange juice, I was fine,” said Sara. “I don’t even tell anyone [about the disorder] because you can almost see them rolling their eyes.”

In 2014, a New York judge dismissed the DUI charge of a woman who was pulled over after a motorist noticed her driving poorly. After police arrived, it was determined that the woman had a whopping 0.33 percent blood alcohol content.

Another characteristic of the disorder is an unusually high tolerance to the alcohol in their system.

The woman’s lawyer hired two physician assistants and a breathalyzer specialist to evaluate the woman over a 12-hour period. They found that the woman’s BAC was double the legal limit at 9:15 AM. At 6 PM, it was triple, and at 8:30 PM, it was four times higher. This was around the same time when the police pulled the woman over for DUI. In other words, her body was producing alcohol consistently throughout the day. Oddly, however, the woman did not exhibit any signs of intoxication until her blood alcohol content reach between 0.30 and 0.40 percent where she would feel dizzy.

Normal people with a blood alcohol content that high are usually unconscious at a minimum, some would be suffering from alcohol poisoning.

“My client does suffer from an extremely unusual condition, and we conducted very extensive medical research and presented our findings to the judge,” said the woman’s defense attorney, Joseph A. Marusak. “To my knowledge, this is the first time a DWI case has ever been dismissed on this basis in New York State, and as far as I can tell, it may be the first time in the country.”

Share


Source

Posted February 10, 2017, 7:26 pm
Categories: dwi

When Does a California DUI Become a Felony?

Generally, when a person is arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence in California, it is a misdemeanor charge. Misdemeanors are punishable by no more than a year in jail. Sometimes, however, a California DUI can be charged as a felony, meaning that it can be punishable by more than a year in jail.

So when does a California DUI become a felony?

The first way that a California DUI can become a felony is if a drunk driver causes death or injury. California Vehicle Code section 23153 makes it unlawful for any person, while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, or with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher to drive a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law, or neglect any duty imposed by law in driving the vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver.

A California DUI causing injury is known as a “wobbler.” This means that it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Whether a prosecutor charges a violation of California Vehicle Code section 23153 as a misdemeanor or a felony depends on several considerations such as the level of intoxication, the seriousness of the injury, the defendant’s prior criminal history, and any other aggravating factors.

If a drunk driver causes the death of someone and the drunk driver has not suffered any prior DUI convictions, the defendant will more likely be charged with vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated or gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under the California Penal Code.

However, if a DUI results in a death and the defendant has suffered a prior DUI conviction within ten years, they can and most likely will be charged with second degree murder. This is known as the “Watson Murder Rule.” In short, the court’s view is that, because the person suffered prior convictions, they knew it was dangerous, yet they did it anyways knowing the risk to life.

The second way that a California DUI can be a felony is when a person has suffered three prior DUI convictions within the past ten years. Priorable DUI charges include driving under the influence (California Vehicle Code section 23152), driving under the influence with injury (California Vehicle Code section 23153), wet-reckless (California Vehicle Code section 23103.5), and out-of-state convictions that qualify as a priorable conviction. Out-of-state DUI convictions qualify as a prior DUI if they would be considered a DUI had the arrest occurred in California.

To prove priorable convictions the prosecutor may use court records from the prior cases as well as Department of Motor Vehicle records. The prosecutor may also use “expunged” (California Penal Code section 1203.4 dismissal) priors in enhancing a DUI charge if the conviction occurred within the 10-year period.

Lastly, a California DUI can become a felony if a person suffered a prior felony DUI within ten years. The priorable felony offense can be a conviction of California Vehicle Code section 23152 (fourth or more DUI), California Vehicle Code section 23153 (DUI causing death or injury), California Penal Code section 192 (vehicular manslaughter), or California Penal Code section 191.5 (vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated or gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated).

Share


Source

Posted February 3, 2017, 1:55 pm
Categories: dwi

Oregon Legislative Study Critcizes “Per Se” DUI Marijuana Laws

As I’ve posted often in the recent past, with the increasing use — and legalization — of marijuana, legislators and law enforcement are falling over themselves trying to come up with answers to many uncomfortable questions, such as:


Does marijuana, in fact, impair driving ability?

How does an officer detect recent use of marijuana in the field? 

How do you measure the amount of active marijuana (THC) in the body at the time of driving?

At what level of active ingredients in the body is a person impaired? 

How long do measurable amounts of marijuana stay in the body?

If impairment levels cannot be determined, is there an illegal per se level that can be used, such as .08% with alcohol? 


And as I’ve posted in the past, there are no accepted satisfactory answers to these and related questions.  See, for example, California Law Attempts to Prevent Marijuana Use While Driving, Is it Possible to Prove "Driving Under the Influence of Drugs? and Legal Defenses to a California DUI of Marijuana.  

Unlike with alcohol, the various states have taken a variety of different approaches to criminalizing marijuana and driving.  See What Are Your State’s Drugged Driving Laws?   One recent and growing approach is to simply create so-called "per se" laws which criminalize driving with specific levels of THC in the blood, regardless of impairment.  This was recently considered by the Oregon Legislature, resulting in the following Oregon House Bill Legislative Report, excerpts of which follow:


Salem, OR.  Dec. 31 —  …While Colorado and Washington, the first states to legalize recreational marijuana, instituted a per se THC blood concentration limit of 5 ng/ml, Oregon did not. Instead, Oregon relies on evaluations by Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) to assess drivers for intoxication if they have already passed a breathalyzer test (i.e. have blood alcohol content below 0.08)….

Differences in how the body processes marijuana as compared to alcohol makes accurate detection of THC concentration and its intoxicating effect significantly more difficult. It is especially difficult to detect recent use of marijuana in the field… 

Due to restrictions on cannabis research and limited data, it is difficult to make definitive statements about the risk of THC-intoxicated driving. The body of evidence that does exist indicates that while attitudes towards driving after marijuana use are considerably more relaxed than in the case of alcohol, the risk of crashes while driving under the influence of THC is lower than drunk driving. Little evidence exists to compel a significant change in status quo policy or institute a per se intoxication standard for THC.


While the confusion, floundering and passage of inconsistent laws continue, so do the arrests and convictions of innocent drivers. 
 

Share


Source

Posted January 31, 2017, 6:30 pm
Categories: dwi

Oregon Legislative Study Criticizes “Per Se” DUI Marijuana Laws

As I’ve posted often in the recent past, with the increasing use — and legalization — of marijuana, legislators and law enforcement are falling over themselves trying to come up with answers to many uncomfortable questions, such as:


Does marijuana, in fact, impair driving ability?

How does an officer detect recent use of marijuana in the field? 

How do you measure the amount of active marijuana (THC) in the body at the time of driving?

At what level of active ingredients in the body is a person impaired? 

How long do measurable amounts of marijuana stay in the body?

If impairment levels cannot be determined, is there an illegal per se level that can be used, such as .08% with alcohol? 


And as I’ve posted in the past, there are no accepted satisfactory answers to these and related questions.  See, for example, California Law Attempts to Prevent Marijuana Use While Driving, Is it Possible to Prove "Driving Under the Influence of Drugs? and Legal Defenses to a California DUI of Marijuana.  

Unlike with alcohol, the various states have taken a variety of different approaches to criminalizing marijuana and driving.  See What Are Your State’s Drugged Driving Laws?   One recent and growing approach is to simply create so-called "per se" laws which criminalize driving with specific levels of THC in the blood, regardless of impairment.  This was recently considered by the Oregon Legislature, resulting in the following Oregon House Bill Legislative Report, excerpts of which follow:


Salem, OR.  Dec. 31 —  …While Colorado and Washington, the first states to legalize recreational marijuana, instituted a per se THC blood concentration limit of 5 ng/ml, Oregon did not. Instead, Oregon relies on evaluations by Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) to assess drivers for intoxication if they have already passed a breathalyzer test (i.e. have blood alcohol content below 0.08)….

Differences in how the body processes marijuana as compared to alcohol makes accurate detection of THC concentration and its intoxicating effect significantly more difficult. It is especially difficult to detect recent use of marijuana in the field… 

Due to restrictions on cannabis research and limited data, it is difficult to make definitive statements about the risk of THC-intoxicated driving. The body of evidence that does exist indicates that while attitudes towards driving after marijuana use are considerably more relaxed than in the case of alcohol, the risk of crashes while driving under the influence of THC is lower than drunk driving. Little evidence exists to compel a significant change in status quo policy or institute a per se intoxication standard for THC.


While the confusion, floundering and passage of inconsistent laws continue, so do the arrests and convictions of innocent drivers. 
 

Share


Source

Posted January 31, 2017, 6:30 pm
Categories: dwi

Company Behind Personal Breathalyzer Settles Dispute with FTC

I’ve never hidden my belief that if a personal breathalyzer can prevent a DUI, it should be used. That being said, it seems the company behind one of the most popular personal breathalyzers on the market has settled with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over false claims of its accuracy.

On the fifth season of ABC’s hit show “Shark Tank,” CEO and founder of Breathometer Inc., Charles Michael Yim, won over the “shark” investors with an invention called the “Breathometer” that allowed users to a detect their own blood alcohol content through their smart phone. The device attached to smartphone, would be blown into by the user, and the smartphone would calculate the BAC through an app. Yim’s pitch included the prospect that the Breathometer could prevent incidences of driving under the influence of alcohol.  The investors were so impressed with Yim’s invention that they offered up a $1 million dollar investment in exchange for a 30% stake in his startup.

The Breathometer became a consumer hit partly due to advertisements which claimed that the devices accuracy was backed up by government-lab grade testing. According to the FTC, sales for the Breathometer totaled $5.1 million.

However, more than three years after the episode aired, the FTC announced that Yim and Breathometer Inc. had settled a claim that the device “lacked scientific evidence to back up their advertising claims.” The complaint also alleged that the company knew that one variation of the Breathometer, the Breeze, “regularly understated” blood alcohol content levels.

While Yim and Breathometer Inc. did, in fact, settle with the FTC, they did not admit or deny the FTC’s allegations.

Under the settlement with the FTC, Yim and Breathometer Inc. are barred from making claims of the device’s accuracy unless the claims are supported through “rigorous testing.” The company also agreed to notify purchasers of the product to offer full refunds.

“People relied on the defendant’s products to decide whether it was safe to get behind the wheel,” Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “Overstating the accuracy of the devices was deceptive — and dangerous.”

Breathometer recognized the settlement on its website by stating, “We feel it is important to clarify that this settlement does not undermine our achievements in creating quality consumer health devices.”

Kevin O’Leary, one of the Shark Tank investors, responded to the settlement by stating that the company proactively stopped the manufacturing of the Breathometer in 2015 before the FTC’s initial inquiry.

I stand by my assertion that a personal breathalyzer is a good way to prevent a DUI. Just do some research beforehand on the reliability of what you purchase. According to digitaltrends.com, the best personal breathalyzer for 2016 was the BACtrack S80 Professional Breathalyzer which will run you $125. According to the website, the best smartphone breathalyzer was the BACtrack Mobile Smartphone Breathalyzer at $98, the best portable breathalyzer was the BACtrack Keychain Breathalyzer Portable starting at $26, and the best budget breathalyzer was the VastarAB120 Professional at $20.

Better to spend $125 (at most) to prevent a DUI than to spend the thousands of dollars it will cost you if you are arrested on suspicion of a DUI.

Share


Source

Posted January 26, 2017, 7:10 am
Categories: dwi

What Are Your State’s Drugged Driving Laws?

"Drunk driving" is a fairly well-defined criminal offense in all 50 states.  There are generally two crimes set forth by statute:  (1) driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and (2) driving a vehicle with a blood-alcohol content of .08% or higher.  The only differences are in relatively minor variations as to what a "vehicle" is and what constitutes being "under the influence".

In marked contrast, however, the definitions of driving under the influence of drugs (so-called "drugged driving" or "DUI drugs") vary significantly from state to state.  In one state, for example, the crime consists of driving while "impaired by" or "under the influence of" a drug.  In another, it may be defined as driving with a specifically designated amount of the drug in the blood.  In yet another, the offense is committed if there is any measurable amount of the drug in the body — and in some states this will include marijuana, while in others it does not.

Do you know what the drugged driving laws are in your state?

Fortunately, the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL) in Charlottesville, Virginia, supported by  grant from the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, has provided a chart entitled State Drugged Driving Standards which readily identifies the laws of each state.    
 

Share


Source

Posted January 23, 2017, 12:18 pm
Categories: dwi

Former NFL Star Sues Bar for Son’s DUI Death

Former New England Patriot and Los Angeles Raider star, Brian Holloway, is suing a Florida bar after Holloway’s son was killed in a DUI related collision after leaving the bar.

Max Holloway, son of Brian Holloway, frequented Panini’s Bar and Grill in Lutz, Florida. On October 26, 2016, Max Holloway, was at Panini’s drinking until 2:30 in the morning at which time he left in his vehicle.

Not far from his condo, Max lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a nearby home. He was killed in the collision.

Under Florida law, a person or a business can be held liable for injuries or damages caused by a habitual alcohol drinker whom was served by that person or business.

Laws like Florida’s are called “dram shop laws.”

Not to say that the bar was right to continue to serve Max Holloway, but to hold them liable for the decision he made to drive while under the influence seems to be rather unfair.

Fortunately, California sees it the same.

While other states such as Florida may hold a bar liable for injuries caused by a drunk driving customer, in California it is the customer’s willful decision to drink and then drive which is the cause of any subsequent DUI collision. Thus, in California, bars and restaurants are shielded from liability when a customer over drinks, drives away, and causes injury or damage.

California’s “Dram Shop Laws” (California Civil Code section 1714) read as follows:

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to . . . reinstate the prior judicial interpretation of this section as it relates to proximate cause for injuries incurred as a result of furnishing alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, namely that the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.

(d) Nothing in subdivision (c) shall preclude a claim against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person under 21 years of age, in which case, notwithstanding subdivision (b), the furnishing of the alcoholic beverage may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuries or death.

As you can see, the laws are different if the customer is under the age of 21. It is the responsibility of bar to ensure that their customers are of legal drinking age before serving them alcohol. People under the age of 21 are legally deemed incapable of making good decisions regarding alcohol use…like the decision not to drive after drinking at a bar.

While California’s law differ from other states with respect to civil liability, like Florida, a bar may be held criminally liable if they serve alcohol to an “obviously intoxicated person.”

According to California Business and Professions Code section 25602(a), “Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Share


Source

Posted January 19, 2017, 7:45 am
Categories: dwi

So Much for the Presumption of Innocence

We pride ourselves in this country on our Constitution and the protections it gives us from the abuses of Big Government.  Perhaps most prominent of these rights is the "presumption of innocence", and the associated right not to have our freedoms or property taken without due process of law.

Except in drunk driving cases…

As I’ve written ad nauseum in the past, there is clearly a DUI Exception to the Constitution in our criminal justice system — and has been for many years.  See, for example, The Disappearing Right to Jury Trials…in DUI Cases, Another DUI Exception to the Constitution and The DUI Exception Continues

If you need any examples of this, just consider the following news article published online this morning….


Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ferrari Confiscation

Suffolk County, NY.  Jan. 13 – The Second Circuit US Court of Appeals upheld the government’s confiscation of James B. Ferrari’s Ferrari in a ruling last week. Officials in Suffolk County, New York had grabbed the 2003 Ferrari Modena coupe, valued at $95,000, after Ferrari was stopped and accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) on May 26, 2009.

A police officer saw the Ferrari allegedly reaching speeds over 100 MPH on South Country Road in Bellport. Ferrari was arrested and his Ferrari confiscated under the state’s drunk driving statute. Ferrari’s attorney argued the Due Process clause of the Constitution required the exotic automobile be returned after his client posted a bond — at least while the charges were being litigated in court. At that point, Ferrari had not be found guilty of any crime.  Ferrari’s attorney insisted that it was the county’s burden to prove the seizure was the only possible remedy to the situation, and a judge and jury both agreed. They ordered the county to pay $95,000 to Ferrari to compensate for the loss of his automobile.

A three-judge appellate panel overturned that judgment in last week’s decision, pointing to Ferrari’s long and sordid history of serious driving offenses, including past DUIs…

"Indeed, if the ultimate forfeiture of a car may validly serve the purpose of preventing this forfeited item of property from being further used as an instrumentality of crime, it is not evident why retention pendente lite [i.e. while litigation is pending] cannot serve, in at least some circumstances, a similar purpose," Judge Debra Ann Livingston wrote for the Second Circuit…


So before the defendant was ever convicted of any crime, his car (not incidentally worth a lot of money to local government authorities) was confiscated by the government.  Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t there a presumption of guilt being applied here?  And isn’t the appellate judge basically saying, "Yes, you are presumed not to have been driving drunk — and we’re going to confiscate your car so that you don’t do it again"?

 

(Thanks to Joe.)

Share


Source

Posted January 13, 2017, 9:53 am
Categories: dwi

California Law Attempts to Prevent Marijuana Use While Driving

As many of you now know, California passed proposition 64 this past November making recreational marijuana use and possession legal. According to Senator Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, proposition 64 contains a loophole that they intend to close.

Last week, the legislators introduced Senate Bill 65 which will criminalize smoking marijuana while driving. Although Proposition 64 legalized the recreational use and possession of marijuana, it still made it illegal to have an open container of marijuana in a vehicle. Proposition 64 did not, however, address the use of marijuana while driving according to Hill and Low.

If you recall from previous posts, Hill has been known to introduce legislation aimed at preventing drunk driving. Last year he passed a law requiring ignition interlock devices for convicted drunk drivers who wished to reinstate their licenses.

“I have a real passion for solving our impaired driving in California from substance abuse,” Hill said. “I don’t want to go in a positive direction on one end and open up the door for deaths on the other end.”

One complaint that opponents have to Senate Bill 65 is that it also bans consumption of cannabidiol, the component of marijuana which is often used by those suffering from chronic pain or to alleviate the symptoms associated with cancer. Cannabidiol does not contain THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the chemical in marijuana that causes impairment.

As I see it, another problem with Senate Bill 65, if passed, is that if a person is arrested for driving while smoking marijuana, they will also inevitably be arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of marijuana. While a person may have been caught smoking while driving, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are “under the influence” of marijuana.

To be under the influence of marijuana, the person’s use of marijuana caused their mental or physical abilities to become impaired such that they can no longer drive a vehicle with the same caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.

While police can utilize field sobriety tests, if the person agrees, to assess whether motor skills are impaired, there is no way to determine how “high” a person is after smoking marijuana. As I’ve said in many previous posts, this is different from alcohol where these is a correlation between a person’s blood alcohol content and impairment. No such correlation exists with marijuana.

Therefore, if Senate Bill 65 is passed, a person arrested for smoking while driving not only faces misdemeanor charges under that law, but they can also inevitably expect DUI of marijuana charges as well.

You can be sure I’ll be keeping my eyes on the progress of this one.

 

Share


Source

Posted January 5, 2017, 7:03 am
Categories: dwi

Court: A Wheelchair Isn’t a Vehicle….Duh!

The surreal "War on Drunk Driving" never ceases to amaze….

In their frantic desire to win votes, satisfy MADD, meet arrest quotas and make money, politicians, cops, prosecutors and judges fall over themselves trying to look tough on DUI.  One ridiculous example of this is expanding the entire concept of "driving a motor vehicle under the influence" to include operating anything that moves on a street, sidewalk or parking lot.  A few of my past posts reflect this:  DUI on a ScooterDUI in a Wheelchair?,  Drunk Driving on a Lawn Mower, DUI – While Walking a Bike, DUI…in a Lounge Chair and Drunk Driving…on a Horse.

Every once in a while, however, some court comes along and courageously announces that "The emperor has no clothes"….


Drunken Driver of a Wheelchair Was a Pedestrian, Appellate Court Rules

Lincoln County, OR.  Dec. 30, 2016 – A man convicted of drunkenly driving his motorized wheelchair should be considered a pedestrian rather than a driver, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled Thursday, reversing and acquitting him.

James Richard Greene was charged with DUI in Lincoln County, for a 2012 incident in which he hit the side of a moving truck while he crossed the street in a crosswalk…

At his two-day jury trial, Greene’s attorney moved for acquittal, calling Greene a pedestrian and not a driver.  Judge Paulette Sanders denied the motion. Greene appealed and on Thursday the three-judge panel reversed, concluding that “the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.”

“We are persuaded that the dichotomy that pervades the vehicle code between pedestrians and operators of vehicles decisively evinces a legislative intention not to subject people in motorized wheelchairs to the DUII statutes when they are traveling as pedestrians in crosswalks,” Presiding Judge Rex Armstrong wrote for the unanimous panel…

Nonetheless, the appeals court found the state’s interpretation of the DUI statute “plausible,” because of the broad way “vehicle” can be interpreted. But it concluded that the Legislature did not intend to treat a person as both a pedestrian and a driver, and Greene was not subject to the vehicle code.  


One wonders if sanity will prevail…or if the prosecutor will appeal this ruling — and win before the Oregon Supreme Court based on "the broad way ‘vehicle’ can be interpreted" to include wheelchairs.  Really?!
 

Share


Source

Posted January 4, 2017, 11:45 am
Categories: dwi

“Driving Under the Influence of Coffee” Charges Dismissed

In my previous post Driving Under the Influence of…Caffeine?, I reported on pending criminal charges against a citizen for driving under the influence of …yes, coffee.  This was after an ABC agent (California Alcohol Beverage Control) was apparently upset when she claims to have been cut off by the "erratic" driver and she stopped and arrested him.  

Subsequent blood tests showed no alcohol or drugs of any kind in his system.  Zero.  Despite this, the Solano County D.A. filed DUI charges against the driver.  He has, of course, consistently refused to plead guilty and has demanded a jury trial.

Yesterday, after almost a year-and-a-half, the D.A. finally dismissed the DUI charges….  


DA Drops DUI Charge for Man Who Tested Positive for Caffeine

Solano County, CA.  Dec. 30 — The Solano County District Attorney’s Office decided Wednesday to drop a DUI charge against a Fairfield man who only tested positive for caffeine.

The charges were dropped more than 16 months after Joseph Schwab, 36, was pulled over on Interstate 680 near Gold Hill Road as he drove to his Fairfield home.

"After further consideration, without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt," District Attorney Krishna Abrams said Wednesday in a news release…
 

I wonder why, after almost a year-and-a-half, the D.A. suddenly decided to dismiss the charges?  Could it possibly have been the embarrassing media attention in the last few days?
 

 

Share


Source

Posted December 30, 2016, 2:07 pm
Categories: dwi

Driving Under the Influence of….Caffeine?

Just when you thought the "War on Drunk Driving" could not get any crazier…..


California Man Fights DUI Charge for Driving Under Influence of Caffeine

San Francisco, CA.  Dec. 24 - Caffeine may be the “nootropic” brain drug of choice in Silicon Valley, but an hour’s drive north in Solano County, California, the stimulant could get you charged with driving under the influence.

That is according to defense attorney Stacey Barrett, speaking on behalf of her client, Joseph Schwab.  After being pulled over on 5 August 2015, Schwab was charged by the Solano County district attorney with misdemeanor driving under the influence of a drug.

Almost 18 months later, Schwab is preparing to go to trial. The only evidence the DA has provided of his intoxication is a blood test showing the presence of caffeine.

Schwab was driving home from work when he was pulled over by an agent from the California department of alcoholic beverage control, who was driving an unmarked vehicle. The agent said Schwab had cut her off and was driving erratically.

The 36-year-old union glazier was given a breathalyzer test which showed a 0.00% blood alcohol level, his attorney said. He was booked into county jail and had his blood drawn, but the resulting toxicology report came back negative for benzodiazepines, cocaine, opiates, THC, carisoprodol (a muscle relaxant), methamphetamine/MDMA, oxycodone, and zolpidem…

“It’s really stupid,” said Jeffrey Zehnder, a forensic toxicologist who frequently testifies in court cases. Over 41 years, Zehnder said, he had never seen a prosecution for driving under the influence of caffeine…

California vehicle code defines a “drug” as any substance besides alcohol that could affect a person in a manner that would “impair, to an appreciable degree” his ability to drive normally.

Making that case with caffeine would be difficult, Zehnder said, because the prosecutor would have to show that impaired driving was specifically caused by the caffeine and not any other circumstances.

“There are no studies that demonstrate that driving is impaired by caffeine, and they don’t do the studies, because no one cares about caffeine,” he said.


So how could this case possibly have been filed by the prosecutor — not to mention arrested to begin with?  And how could it possibly be going to trial?  Does the prosecution seriously believe that coffee is intoxicating?  Is law enforcement running out of drunk drivers to arrest?  Does Solano County government really need the money from fines that badly?

Or is there a simpler explanation?  Let’s take a second look at the story…..


Schwab was driving home from work when he was pulled over by an agent from the California department of alcoholic beverage control, who was driving an unmarked vehicle. The agent said Schwab had cut her off and was driving erratically.

 
Hmmm….Maybe the arresting "alcohol beverage control" agent was simply suffering from a case of "road rage" — and abused her legal authority?  
 

Share


Source

Posted December 27, 2016, 8:53 am
Categories: dwi

“Pot Breathalyzers” on the Horizon…

 As I’ve mentioned in past posts, there are a number of problems with trying to determine whether a driver is under the influence of marijuana.  See, for example, Marijuana-Impaired Driving: A Prosecutor’s Nightmare?, New Study: Minimal Driving Impairment From MarijuanaCalifornia Proposes New Law to Allow Roadside Marijuana Tests, Is a Marijuana Breathalyzer in the Offing?    Primary among these problems are:


1.  Marijuana cannot be detected or measured on a breath machine.  It can be measured with blood tests, but there is almost always a delay — often hours — in obtaining a blood sample.  Result:  due to continuing metabolism of marijuana in the body, the level at the time of testing may be significantly higher or lower than at the time of driving

2.  Unlike alcohol which dissipates after several hours, THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) can stay in a person’s system for days or even weeks after smoking or eating.  Even though they are no longer affecting the driver, they will be still detected and reported as marijuana in the blood.

3.  There are no recognized scientific studies establishing at what level of THC in the blood a person’s driving ability is impaired.


A solution to one of these problems would be the development of a breath machine which could accurately measure marijuana on the breath — particularly if this could be done quickly at the scene of the arrest.  But no such device exists….yet:


Marijuana Breathalyzers to Test California Pot Users for Pot Use

Los Angeles, CA.  Sept. 14 – An Oakland-based company has developed a marijuana breathalyzer for distribution across police stations in the U.S. to begin a nationwide test to see if they can monitor people operating motor vehicles while under the influence of pot, and drivers in California were among the first to be tested…

The marijuana breathalyzer – which had some help in development by the University of California’s chemistry department – is able to detect THC on people’s breath after they’ve consumed edible pot products as well as alcohol.

Hound Labs plans to roll their product out nationwide upon further testing to validate the technology’s results.

Until it’s perfected, police will have to continue relying on testing saliva, urine, and blood to measure marijuana in the system, which can show the presence of drugs days after the user is actually under the influence.

Some police have already shown their support for the breathalyzer, including Lompoc Police Chief Patrick Walsh, who says he plans on issuing the device to at least six of his departments over the next six months…


Ok, so maybe they will be able to detect and even measure the amount of THC in the blood from testing the breath.  But how does this solve the problem of inactive THC still remaining in the blood from smoking days or weeks earlier?  And what good is it to know the amount of THC in the breath if there is still no scientific evidence of the amount necessary to impair driving ability?
 

Share


Source

Posted December 20, 2016, 10:00 am
Categories: dwi

Spiked Drink Land Pro Soccer Player DUI

I’m a huge fan of England’s top flight soccer league, the English Premier League. While my team is Chelsea F.C. (go Blues!), I keep up with other players and teams. And like many other die-hard fans of the English Premier League, I was surprised when one of the league’s best players was caught driving drunk. Why was I surprised that Yaya Touré, of Manchester City F.C.,  was caught driving drunk? Because he is known for refusing alcohol due to his Muslim religion.

Touré was charged in late November for an incident in which he was pulled over by police for driving with passengers while having a blood alcohol content of twice the legal limit in England of 0.08 percent.

So if Touré doesn’t drink alcohol, how did he get caught driving under the influence? Touré believes that his drink was spike at the party that he had left.

“Over the last two weeks there has been some confusion as to why I was charged with drink driving, as it is well known that I am a Muslim and do not drink,” said Touré on his website. “I have always refused alcohol. Anyone who knows me or follows football will have seen me refuse champagne for Man of the Match performances because of my commitment to my religion.”

Although Touré did not dispute the charges and was ultimately sentenced to a license suspension and a whopping £54,000 fine, he explained to the court that he had not intentionally consumed alcohol.

According to The Telegraph who was present in court for Touré’s sentencing, Touré “told magistrates he had no idea he had been drinking, even though he conceded his Diet Coke tasted odd, and although he felt ‘tired’ he had not suspected he was tipsy.

“He told the court that he had been to a house party where he had poured himself what he thought was Diet Coke from a jug, but later discovered it was mixed with brandy.

“He had been the ‘designated driver’ on the night of the party and drove his car with passengers in it, claiming he just felt tired, despite being double the drink-drive limit.

“He told the court he thought his drink tasted different but only later found out he had been pouring himself a pre-mixed drink.”

Did Touré have to accept responsibility if he unknowingly became intoxicated and then got behind the wheel?

At least here in California, possibly not.

The California jury instruction CALCRIM 3427 states, “A person is involuntarily intoxicated if he or she unknowingly ingested some intoxicating liquor, drug, or other substance, or if his or her intoxication is caused by the force, duress, fraud, or trickery of someone else, for whatever purpose [without the fault on the part of the intoxicated person].” A person who has been involuntary intoxicated cannot be convicted of a crime according to California Penal Code section 24 which states, “All persons are capable of committing crimes except…[p]ersons who committed the act charged without being conscious thereof.”

Touré would have to prove that he became intoxicated through no fault of his own. For example, the defense is not available if he intended to drink alcohol, but someone spiked his drink with more alcohol than you knew of. This might also mean that he had no reason to believe that the drink was spiked or that he had no reason to believe he was intoxicated when he decided to drive.

Based on his statement, he didn’t intent to drink alcohol, however he may have had reason to believe his drink was spiked.

However, the California Court of Appeals in People v. Scott (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 823, has held that the mistake of fact defense can be based on involuntary intoxication. The mistake of fact defense can be used if you act under an honest and reasonable mistake of fact and commit a crime. This does not apply if you are mistaken of the law. For example, you cannot use the defense if you mistakenly believe the law prohibited you from driving with a .10 or above instead of .08 or above BAC, and you have a .09 BAC. On the other hand, if you honestly and reasonably, but mistakenly believe that you have not ingested any intoxicating substances, you may be able to use the mistake of fact defense.

 

 

Share


Source

Posted December 15, 2016, 12:13 pm
Categories: dwi

New Efforts to Push Roadside Marijuana DUI Test

In April of 2015 I wrote about Assembly Bill 1356, written by Assemblyman Tom Lackey from Palmdale, California, which would have allowed law enforcement to use a device similar to a breathalyzer that could detect the presence of marijuana and a number of other drugs in a driver’s system.

That bill however, failed to pass the Assembly Public Safety Committee the following May because of reliability concerns.

However, with the passing of Proposition 64 which allowed the use of recreational marijuana in California, Lackey who is a former sergeant with the California Highway Patrol, has introduced a new bill similar to that of the failed AB1356.

The newly proposed Assembly Bill 6 would allow tests using saliva samples taken from drivers suspected of driving under the influence. The test would let the officer know whether a driver has recently used a number of drugs including marijuana.

“The ballot initiative passed this year to legalize marijuana will result in more marijuana consumers on our state’s highways and roads,” Lackey said in a statement. “It is imperative that we invest in a broad spectrum of technologies and research to best identify marijuana-impaired drivers.”

The measure is supported by Chief Ken Corney, president of the California Police Chiefs Assn.

“Our federal partners have demonstrated the efficacy of oral fluid testing, and we look forward to utilizing the technology at a state level,” Corney said in a statement.

While the current devices referred to by Corney tests for the presence of drugs, it does not test for drug  quantity nor impairment of the driver.

There is an established correlation between blood alcohol content, specifically the legal limit of 0.08 percent, and alcohol impairment. Unlike alcohol, however, there is no such correlation between the presence of drugs and impairment. In other words, a person can have traces of drug in their system without being impaired by that drug.

Marijuana, for example, can stay in a person’s system for weeks following the smoking or ingesting of the marijuana and well after the person was intoxicated or stoned. The purpose of DUI laws is to prevent impaired driving, not to punish sober and unintoxicated people merely because they ingested drugs at some point in the past.

It is unclear how the presence of a drug may affect the subsequent arrest or DUI case since presence doesn’t necessarily mean impairment. Until we can establish a correlation with drugs including marijuana like we have with alcohol, namely the correlation between quantity and impairment, we shouldn’t be using pushing for laws like this.

Assembly Bill 6 will be brought up for a vote early next year.

 

Share


Source

Posted December 8, 2016, 5:03 pm
Categories: dwi

California DUI with Out-of-State Priors

Many people know that a California DUI is a “priorable” offense. This means that if a person is arrested and convicted of a subsequent California DUI within ten years, the penalties by operation of law increase.

Generally, a first-time California DUI conviction carries three to five years of summary (informal) probation, up to six months in jail, between $390 and $1,000 in fines, completion of a court-approved three month DUI program, and a six-month license suspension.

A second-time California DUI conviction carries three to five years of summary probation, a minimum of 96 hours to a maximum of one year in county jail, between $390 and $1,000 in fines, completion of a court-approved 18 month DUI program, and a two-year license suspension.

A third-time California DUI conviction carries three to five years of summary probation, a minimum of 120 days to a maximum of one year in county jail, between $390 and $1,000 in fines, completion of a court approved 30-month DUI program, and a three-year license revocation.

With this understanding, the question arises: Can a prior out-of-state DUI conviction be used to make a current California DUI a “second offense” and allow the court to increase the penalties?

It depends on whether the facts in the prior out-of-state DUI case would have constituted a DUI in California, under California law.

For example, Florida’s DUI law reads, “A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence… if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and…[t]he person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages…when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired…”

The wording of Florida’s statute may prohibit a past Florida conviction from being used to make a California DUI a “second offense” for two reasons.

The first problem is that Florida’s statute requires that a person impaired “to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired.” This standard is less strict than California. California requires that a person be impaired to an appreciable degree. Thus, a person may be deemed impaired under Florida’s standard, but not necessarily under California’s.

The second problem is that Florida’s statute also requires that someone drive or is “in actual physical control of a vehicle.” This makes Florida what is called a “dominion and control state.” A person can have dominion and control over a vehicle by simply being in the driver’s seat. California’s DUI law, on the other hand, requires that a person actually drive the vehicle. Therefore, a person can be convicted under Florida’s DUI law by sitting in the driver’s seat while intoxicated. However, someone sitting in the driver’s seat while intoxicated cannot be convicted under California’s DUI law.

Therefore, if a person was convicted five years ago in Florida for a DUI under Florida law because they were found drunk in the driver’s seat of their vehicle, but not driving, that conviction cannot be used to make a current California DUI a “second offense” to increase the penalties because California DUI law requires that the person actually drive the vehicle.

If, however, that same person was pulled over after driving and are convicted of a Florida DUI, that prior Florida DUI conviction can be used to make the current California DUI a “second” offense.

Share


Source

Posted December 1, 2016, 1:28 pm
Categories: dwi

Pilot Arrested for DUI

An Indiana man was recently arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. It was later discovered that he was on his way to the Indianapolis airport. The man, identified as Robert Harris III, is a commercial pilot.

According to police, Harris’ eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he had trouble with coordination. In fact, according to court documents, field sobriety tests could not be completed because Harris almost fell over while trying to walk. It was later determined that his blood alcohol content was 0.29 percent.

It is unclear if Harris was scheduled to fly that evening and the airline for which Harris was employed refused to comment on the matter.

While federal regulations require that pilots follow an 8-hour “bottle to throttle” rule, some airlines require a 12-hour period between a pilot’s last drink and flight. Also, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, a pilot must report an alcohol-related conviction, suspension, revocation, and/or failed breath test within 60 days.

Since federal aviation regulations do not require a person to hold a driver’s license to fly a plane, the arrest and a subsequent conviction for driving under the influence does not necessarily preclude piloting aircraft following the arrest and/or conviction.

“The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) does not hesitate to act aggressively when pilots violate the alcohol and drug provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations,” said FAA spokesperson Elizabeth Cory. “Airlines are required to have random testing programs in place.”

“The FAA evaluates these cases on an individual basis, which could affect the pilot’s certificate eligibility,” said Cory.

Not surprisingly, this did not settle well with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

“I would have assumed the FAA would have similar sanctions to the state of Indiana and withholding their license to operate a motor vehicle whether that’s a plane or car,” said MADD spokesperson Lael Hill. “It’s a little bit concerning knowing someone accused of a crime and is allegedly drinking and driving and could have their driver’s license taken away and not their pilot’s license or certificate.”

Hypothetically, had Harris had been on his way to the airport to fly, what would have happened had he flown an airplane under the influence?

First off, the California Vehicle Code does not apply to aircraft. Rather, crewmembers of civil aircrafts, including pilots, are governed by the FAA. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 91.17 states that, “no person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft within 8 hours after drinking alcohol, while under the influence of alcohol, while using any drug that affects the person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety, or while having an alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen.”

Furthermore, the FAA requires random alcohol screenings of pilots and are subject to an implied consent law similar to California’s DUI implied consent law.

Similarly, California Public Utility Code section 21407 reads, “It is unlawful for any person to operate an aircraft in the air, or on the ground or water in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. In any proceeding charging operation of aircraft in violation of this section, the court in determining whether the operation was careless or reckless shall consider the standards for safe operation of aircraft prescribed by federal statutes or regulations governing aeronautics.”

California penalties for a first time FUI include a county jail sentence of 30 days to six months, and/or a fine of $250 to $1,000.  Federal penalties, on the other hand, are far more severe and can include up to 15 years in federal prison and up to $250,000.

Share


Source

Posted November 23, 2016, 10:27 am
Categories: dwi

West Virginia Supreme Court Rules for DUI on Private Property

The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision and ruled that people can be arrested and convicted of driving under the influence even if it occurred on private property and have their licenses revoked.

The case stems from an incident in 2012 when a man by the name of Joshua Beckett crashed an ATV in a field on the farm owned by his family. Following the collision, Beckett was taken to the hospital where it was discovered that his blood alcohol content was 0.17 percent. He was subsequently charged with driving under the influence.

A magistrate dismissed the DUI case, but an administrative judge upheld a prior revocation of Beckett’s driver’s license for 45 days notwithstanding Beckett’s argument that there was no evidence that he drove on a public street or highway.

Beckett appealed the decision to the Monroe County Circuit Court. There, the circuit court judge ruled that because Beckett’s “actions did not occur on land open to public use,” the administrative judge did not have jurisdiction to revoke his license.

The Division of Motor Vehicles’ commissioner who originally revoked Beckett’s license appealed the decision to the West Virginia Supreme Court.

“The Legislature’s definition of the phrase ‘in this State’ … extends the reach of our driving-under-the-influence laws to any individual driving a vehicle within the physical boundaries of West Virginia, even if the vehicle is driven only upon private property not open to the general public,” Chief Justice Menis Ketchum who wrote a portion of the majority opinion. “The Legislature chose to structure our DUI statutes to regulate the condition of the driver, not the locale in which the driving is taking place. Thus, the Legislature expressed its plain intent to prohibit an intoxicated person from driving a vehicle anywhere in West Virginia, whether on public roads or across private land.”

The decision and its rationale mirrors that which the law here in California.

Division 11 of the California Vehicle Code sets forth the “rules of the road,” if you will, which includes California’s laws against driving with a 0.08 blood alcohol content or higher and driving while under the influence. California Vehicle Code section 21001 states, “The provisions of [Division 11] refer exclusively to the operation of vehicles upon the highways, unless a different place is specifically referred to.” The Code then goes on to state, “[t]he provisions of this chapter apply to vehicles upon the highways and elsewhere throughout the State unless expressly provided otherwise.”

Prior to 1982 the vehicle code made it illegal to drive drunk “upon a highway or upon other than a highway areas in which are open to the general public.” However, in 1982, the legislature deleted the language referring to the locations upon which a person could be arrested and ultimately convicted of drunk driving.

The California Court of Appeals in People v. Malvitz relied on the earlier version of the California Vehicle Code to help clarify the issue. The Court concluded that the “statute that prohibited driving under the influence of alcohol and/or any drug has emerged unencumbered with any language restricting its reach.”

In other words, the Court concluded that it was the intent of the legislature that, in deleting the portion of the statute which referred to location, the law which prohibits drunk driving should extend to anywhere in California where drunk drivers pose a threat included public highways as well private property.

Furthermore, California Vehicle Code section 23215 states, “[law enforcement] may, but shall not be required to, provide patrol or enforce the provisions of [California’s DUI law] for offenses which occur other than upon a highway.”

Whether you’re in West Virginia or in California, it is illegal to drive under the influence on public roads as well as on private property.

Share


Source

Posted November 14, 2016, 7:46 am
Categories: dwi

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. DWI Springfield is not affiliated with or endorsed by the City of Springfield.