San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

A crash in Vista early on August 13 on westbound State Route 78 left three dead and two injured. The accident occurred when a Jeep Cherokee reportedly swerved onto the right-hand shoulder of the freeway, slamming into the back of a Nissan Altima that had pulled over.

The driver of the Jeep, who was not wearing a seat belt, was thrown out of the car and suffered serious injuries. She was transported to a trauma center, but not before being arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and felony vehicular manslaughter charges. Her passenger, who was also without a seat belt, was crushed and killed.

Under California law, a driver can be charged with murder if, while driving under the influence, someone is killed as a result of that driving.

The driver of the Altima had pulled onto the shoulder because one of the passengers was feeling ill. Both the driver and the sick passenger were killed when the Jeep struck them on the side of the road. One other passenger, Omar Guzman, had stepped away from the Nissan before the crash and avoided injury. A fourth passenger suffered minor scrapes.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, including the three killed Friday, 12 people have died in alcohol-related crashes in San Diego County this year on freeways and roads patrolled by CHP. That compares with 49 deaths in DUI collisions in all of 2009 on CHP-patrolled freeways and roads in the county.

If you are arrested here in San Diego for DUI, you'll need an experienced and aggressive California DUI Attorney to handle your case. Contact my office immediately to ensure that you preserve your right to drive.

One common question that arises upon an arrest for a DUI is, "What happens to my license?" If you're represented by a public defender, it's often hard to get a good answer, since public defenders don't handle the DMV hearings in DUI cases and many of them don't know what happens. Thus, one benefit of having a private attorney is the ability to have representation at any DMV hearings.

This is the first part of a series of blogs that will discuss the DMV consequences of DUIs. This first entry with deal with the consequences of a first-time DUI, with a blood alcohol content (BAC) between 0.08% and 0.15%.

Upon arrest for a DUI where it is alleged that you have driven under the influence, in violation of either California Vehicle Code section 23152(b) or section 23152(a), the DMV can take administrative action against your driving privileges. This is different from the criminal court proceedings. What happens in court is separate from what happens with the DMV. The court has no power over the DMV to reinstate your license if the DMV suspends it, even if the charges are dropped, or you are convicted of a lesser charge (such as a wet reckless). You must take care of DMV actions through the DMV and court/criminal proceedings through the court.

The initial driver's license suspension upon arrest is four months. After 30 days of actual suspension, you are eligible to get a 5-month restricted license. You may have a hearing with the DMV regarding the status of your license prior to any court hearings.

If you are convictedof a DUI, a 6-month suspension is imposed. However, it can be converted into a 6-month restricted license upon proof of enrollment in the AB-541, which is the three-month first-offender program, payment of all applicable fees, and filing an SR-22 (a California Insurance Proof certificate). Note that if you have already enrolled in the first-offender program prior to conviction, judges will generally not require you to complete a different program upon conviction.

It is also important to know that, in some counties, a pilot program was initiated on July 1 of this year. This program may require the installation of an ignition interlock device even on a first-time DUI. For more information on this new program, click here.

DUIs may be misdemeanors in most situations, but they can still have a profound effect on your life. Contact my office for a free consultation today if you or someone you know has been arrested and charged with a DUI.

On July 1, 2010, new legislation went into effect in the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare regarding first-time and repeat DUIs.

The new law requires that both first-time and repeat drunk driving offenders install an ignition-interlock device in their cars. This device prevents cars from starting if alcohol is detected on the breath of the driver.

The law will be in place in those four counties for the next five years before California legislators will decide whether to expand the program statewide.

There are both pros and cons to the new legislation. On the one hand, such a law may reduce the number of drunk driving accidents on the road. On the other hand, the law requires all people convicted of drunk driving to install this device in their cars--on top of court-imposed fines and fees resulting from the conviction, which can range from $1,000 to $5,000. The device costs approximately $125 to install and $60 a month to maintain, with a one-time DMV administrative fee of $45. For first-time DUI offenders, who must have the device installed for five months, this comes out to nearly $500. For subsequent offenders, the device may be required for up to three years. Drunk driving with injury will also increase the amount of time the device needs to be in the car.

Further complicating the matter for convicted drunk drivers is that the DMV has a list of approved "providers" to install the device. Having the device installed by a provider not on the list could result in more problems for drivers.

Continue reading "New DUI Legislation Goes Into Effect in Four CA Counties" »

The California Court of Appeal recently overturned a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) of methamphetamine in People v. Torres.  Mr. Torres had been convicted by a jury after being arrested and charged under California Vehicle Code section 23152(a), driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Torres was seen leaving a suspected meth house that was under police surveillance. Police followed him for a short distance and then pulled him over when he overshot the stop sign limit line before coming to a complete stop.  Once pulled over, Torres exhibited symptoms of methamphetamine use including profuse sweating, rigid muscles, chemical odor, bad breath and slow to constrict pupils.  Torres later admitted to using meth within the past two days and submitted to a urine test which came back at fairly high levels.


You would think that Mr. Torres would have taken a plea bargain along the way, but his attorney was smart.  To be found guilty of driving under the influence of a drug, "the . . . drug(s) must have so far affected the nervous system, the brain, or muscles [of the individual] as to impair to an appreciable degree the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his faculties." (People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1278.)

But in Mr. Torres' case, the police did not observe him driving irradically.  The testifying officer admitted that failing to stop at the limit line is not sufficient to establish that the driver is under the influence of a drug.  Further, the arresting officer did no field tests to determine if Mr. Torres' ability to drive was impared.  In fact, the arresting officer admitted to having no training to determine the effects of drug use on driving ability.

So, despite the fact that Mr. Torres was convicted by a jury and likely served most if not all of his 120 day sentence before his appeal was decided, his conviction was eventually reversed.  And that is significant, because most drug users reoffend even if they want and seek out treatment.  A prior conviction can have vast implications in a subsequent case including less willingness on the part of the prosecution to plea bargain and stiffer sentences.

If you have been charged with driving under the influence of a drug in San Diego County, it is essential that you contact a skilled San Diego DUI defense attorney.  A good lawyer will closely evaluate the evidence in your case and determine if the police and prosecution have collected enough evidence to seek and obtain a conviction. 

To the unskilled eye, the facts in Torres' case looked like he should plea to the charges. To a lawyer familiar with the holding in the Torres case and the entire intricate web of DUI case law, the facts presented an opportunity to get the charges dismissed.