DUI Convictions and the Suspended Drivers License

Of all the consequences that come with a DUI conviction, the harshest consequence of all is the drivers license suspension.  If you are convicted of a DUI, your driving privilege will be suspended for at least one year.  This suspension can impact your entire life, and may dramatically change your ability to go to work and go to school.  There are no exceptions.

If you live and work in a place with public transportation, or your work and/or school is close to where you live, this may be a minor inconvenience.  I have had clients who live in rural areas, but who commute to the city for work, and as a result of a suspension, they lose their jobs.

There are ways around the license suspension, but they are fact specific to each case.  For example, on a first time DUI, I have been able to negotiate an alcohol impaired driving charge instead of the full DUI.  Drivers License Division doesn't suspend a license for a first time alcohol impaired driving.  A second alcohol impaired driving, however, will result in a suspension, so if you are lucky enough to dodge a suspension the first time, learn your lesson. 

If you are being charged with a DUI, call me.  I will work hard to protect your driving privileges.

How Will a DUI Conviction Effect My Record?

  Many of my clients are anxious to know how a DUI will effect them, and for how long. The concern is that a DUI conviction: limits your ability to drive, impact your employment opportunities, effects insurance rates, carries with it a social stigma, gives you a criminal record, and acts as a prior for future DUI's .

 In Utah, a DUI conviction will stay on your record for 10 years. A second DUI within that 10 years period dramatically increases the penalties you face if convicted again, and a third DUI within the 10 year period is a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in the State Prison.

Once ten years have passed, you will be eligible to expunge your DUI conviction, and it will no longer be used as a prior conviction. This ten year waiting period for expungement is the longest for any type of crime in Utah. For example, felonies can be expunged after seven years, and some misdemeanors can be expunged after three years, but any alcohol related driving offense must wait the full ten years.

I have been successful in negotiating with prosecutors to reduce a DUI charge to an alcohol impaired driving charge or even a non-alcohol related reckless driving, under certain circumstances. A reduction to straight reckless driving is not always possible, depending on the fact of the case, but when it happens, it reduces the time the conviction is on a client's record by more than half. A reduction to alcohol impaired driving can help you keep your drivers license, and lessen the impact on your insurance, but it acts as a prior conviction for future DUI charges, and cannot be expunged until after the ten year waiting period.

 If you want to avoid having a DUI on your record for ten years, call me to schedule an appointment. I will review the facts of the case and see what if any negotiations can be done to reduce your conviction. The best advice I have is not to drink and drive.

California DUI Laws

No area of the law has undergone such a significant change over the last 20 years than that of California DUI Law. Indeed, the legislature has tinkered and toyed with various aspects of the criminal drunk driving laws such as sentencing, enhancing sentences through new statutes that impose more severe jail requirements under certain factual circumstances such as speeding, having children in the car and having elevated blood alcohol levels. The state has shortened the time period that a DUI prior can be used in the current case. An increase in the length of DUI schools, adding three additional programs. All of these changes just in the last decade or so. What changes will we see in the coming years? Time will tell.

The Intoxilyzer

In the past, someone arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) used to be given a choice of three tests to verify the amount of alcohol in their system: a blood, breath, or urine test.  Since then, urine tests have been found to be unreliable for concentration amounts.  Blood tests are invasive and involve a needle.  Because of this, a breath test has been the preferred choice by law enforcement and the accused.

To take a breath test, a person blows into a machine, called an intoxilyzer, and the machine figures out how much alcohol is in their blood.  If the result is a .08% blood alcohol content (BAC) or higher, then the person is deemed intoxicated and not safe to operate a vehicle.  A result lower than a .08% infers that the person may be safe to drive, but that can be challenged by the person's driving pattern and other factors.

An intoxilyzer is a machine, and is subject to problems, like any other machine.  Sometimes the results are not accurate, the machine may need calibration, and there is an expected variation in results.  Also, the operator must be trained and certified, and needs to keep the certification current.  There are also rules governing an observation period prior to administering the test to make sure that there is no alcohol in the test subjects mouth from burping or regurgitation that could effect the validity of the test.

If you have been arrested for DUI, and had to take a breath test, this fact will be explored in both the Drivers License Hearing and the prosecution of the criminal DUI charges.  I have successfully represented clients in challenging the validity of the intoxilyzer test results based on the problems with the technology, the failure of  a police officer to follow the mandatory protocols, and the failure of the officer to keep his certification current.  As a result, I have been able to help my client's keep their drivers licenses, and avoid criminal convictions.

Public Defender vs. Private Attorney

Should I hire a private lawyer or just go with a public defender?  What's the difference between the two?  What advantage would a private attorney give me over a public defender?   These are important questions to ask yourself when charged with a crime.  Naturally you would want the best representation possible.  But is it worth paying thousands of dollars to a private attorney when a public defender is free?

To begin with, let's define the two.  In Utah, counties and cities open a bidding process to fill the position of Public Defender.  Bids come in from various attorneys with different levels of experience and expertise.  The Public Defender contract is usually given to the lowest bid, sometimes with no regard for experience.  Once the public defender is selected he or she is inundated with cases, appointed by the court, for defendants who qualify for free representation.  The case load is always very large, and very limited of time is given to each case because of the volume of cases.

Public defenders work with the city and county prosecutors to resolve each case as quickly as possible.  Because of the huge demand on the public defenders, defendants do not always get the best representation or defense in their cases.  I have heard many defendants upset and frustrated that their public defender has no time to return phone calls, refuse to prepare a suppression  motion, do a preliminary hearing, or take their case to trial, because they don' have the time.

A Private Attorney is a lawyer who is hired by a defendant to represent them in court.  Private attorney's have much small case loads, thus they have more time to work on a case, interview witnesses, investigate and meet with the client, even return phone calls.

Hiring a private attorney allows you to shop around, get referrals, research which lawyer has experience in criminal law, and which one is a general attorney, knowing a little bit about a lot of different areas.  Most private attorneys will allow you to come into their office for a free initial consultation.  This way, you can find out how experienced the attorney is, his or her feelings about your case, and the fee you would be charged.

The saying "You get what you pay for" is often very true when hiring an attorney.  The more experience, the better the representation and defense.  If you are charged with a crime, give me a call.  You don't want to chance your future with anyone else.

California Appeals Courts Start To Decide Cases on Illegal DUI Blood Draws

Earlier this year the US Supreme Court ruled that a DUI blood draw against a person's consent violates the Constitution. Recently, in seven separate cases, each defendant was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a), (b)) and filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5, contending that the blood drawn from his person subsequent to arrest and pursuant to the implied consent law should be suppressed under Schmerber v. California because the blood draw was not performed in a constitutionally reasonable manner. In each case, the arresting officer transported the defendant to the jail (or in one case a hospital) where phlebotomists or other technicians drew the blood. The officers observed the blood draw and testified that each defendant agreed to the test, no defendant experienced undue pain, and the draw was performed in a sanitary manner. The motions to suppress were denied in six of the seven cases. The appellate division of the superior court agreed with the defendants that the evidence should have been suppressed. The California Court of Appeal transferred the cases from the appellate division and consolidated the cases for decision. The Courts Reversed. Finding that the means and procedures used to obtain a blood sample from an arrestee in a DUI case must be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. If a physician does not draw an arrestee's blood in a hospital, courts evaluate whether the conditions of the blood draw created an undue risk of harm to the arrestee. Testimony from a police officer who witnessed the blood draw may properly be considered in evaluating whether the blood draw was conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner—expert testimony is not required. Here, the officers' unrebutted testimony showed that the blood draw did not expose the defendant to an unjustified element of personal risk of infection or pain and was not performed in a manner which created any undue harm or risk. The blood draws were conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner.

The Right To Rehabilitation for a DUI in California

In California, as is the case in many other states, the court must inform the defendant, either orally or in writing, of his or her right to apply for relief from all penalties and disabilities resulting from a misdemeanor DUI conviction after the passage of one year from the date of pronouncement of judgment, or longer if the defendant enters into a plea bargain with the prosecution.  This right is sometimes referred to as an expungement.  According to one Tehachapi DUI Attorney, this right to relief is available provided the defendant successfully performs his or her sentence and leads a law-abiding life during that period under Penal Code Section 1203.4a. Relief is afforded by permitting the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or no contest or by setting aside a verdict of guilty and dismissing the accusatory pleading. In DUI cases, the right is limited somewhat to a Judges discretion, unlike other misdemeanor crimes. Defendants convicted of an infraction are not entitled to relief under Pen C §1203.4a. Pen C §1203.4a(b). A defendant who is granted probation on a DUI may apply for relief from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the conviction on the successful completion of probation which under CA law is a minimum of 36 months.  Notice of this right to relief must be contained in the defendant’s probation papers