Sacramento DUI Attorney

The consequences of drinking and driving in California are getting harsher by the year.  It was not too long ago that if you were arrested in for DUI in California that you could expect to pay a fine and move on with your life.  Nowadays the penalties for DUI are increasing.  For example it used to be that you had to have a high level of alcohol in your blood before a judge would consider ordering you to install an ignition interlock device and even then it was rarely ordered on your first offense DUI conviction.  The legislature is taking away that discretion from the court and making it mandatory to install such a device upon a first conviction. This law is being tested as a pilot program in only four of California’s 58 counties: Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Tulare.  The bill is codified in section 23700 of the California Vehicle Code.

The stated purpose of the law is to reduce repeat offenses and first-time offenders.  I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this will not only fail to reduce the number of repeat offenses but it will also fail to appreciably reduce the number of first-offenders.  Why will it fail to meet the goal of reducing first-offenders?  Because this measure is punitive not preventative.  There are already a number of penalties for first-offenders that it is doubtful that adding an IID will deter a significant amount of would be first-offenders.  The penalties for a first offense are generally: a DUI class, fine of about $2,000, a couple of days on work project, a six-month license suspension, and probation.  The DUI school can be from 3 to 9 months for the first-offense.  This depends on both your blood alcohol level and the skill of your DUI lawyer.

So if this law is not going to have a significant deterrent effect what effect will it have?  It will most certainly make a first offense more expensive.  It is likely to increase the revenue of those who manufacture and install the ignition interlock device.  I would like to see the study that supports the hope that this law will reduce first-time violations.  I wonder if State Senator Ashburn supported this bill and what he would think now.

In the early morning hours of March 3, 2010, State Senator Roy Ashburn was arrested on suspicion of DUI.  Senator Ashburn is a republican senator from Bakersfield.  News reports indicate that CHP officers conducted a traffic stop on his vehicle because of erratic driving.  Upon stopping the vehicle the driver of the vehicle identified himself as Senator Ashburn.  The CHP officer noticed signs of intoxication and shortly thereafter placed the Senator under arrest.  It is unclear whether the Senator attempted to use his office to gain favorable treatment.  Reports do indicate that he identified himself as “Senator Ashburn.”

This arrest comes at a time when the lawmakers in Sacramento are getting tougher on drunk drivers.  There is a new pilot program that will begin on July 1, 2010 that will require everyone convicted of a DUI in certain counties to install an ignition interlock device for a period of time.  I wonder if this Senator had anything to do with that legislation.

The bottom line is that this Senator probably will get treated like everyone else if he is convicted.  If this is his first offense he is looking at about $2,200 in fines, 3 years of probation, two days of work project (probably will be given credit for time served or allowed to do a more low key home detention), and will have to attend an alcohol education program.

1. It is double jeopardy to get my license suspended by the DMV and also be punished by the court.
2. The judge can force the DMV to issue me a restricted license after my DUI conviction.
3. I can’t be charged as a second offender for my second DUI within 9 years because the law when I was convicted only had a 7 year look-back.
4. I have a prescription for the marijuana that was in my system so my DUI should be dismissed.
5. I only had over the counter cold medicine in my system so my DUI should be dismissed.
6. I had a few beers before I drove so I must be guilty of driving under the influence.
7. I can just explain what happened to the prosecutor and judge and they will go easy on me.
8. I can avoid jail by paying a bigger fine.
9. I can get the best results by hiring the most expensive defense attorney.
10. I don’t need to consult with a California DUI attorney because my friend had a DUI last year and I know what to expect.

Driving under the influence is a very serious charge.  There are many innocent people who die every year because of drunk driving.  As a result, politicians and powerful lobbies seek to make tougher consequences for those convicted of DUI.  They are also making it easier to convict people accused of DUI.

Alcohol and driving don’t mix however the law is not that may legally have less than 0.08% of alcohol in your blood and still drive a car as long as you are not to impaired to drive safely.  Unfortunately, police and prosecutors jump to the conclusion that if you have had anything to drink then you are likely too impaired to drive.

In a typical DUI investigation the officer may have already drawn the conclusion that you are too impaired to drive even before you complete field sobriety tests.  This can lead to a skewed view of your performance on these tests.  Many time the “errors” noted by the officers can be explained by factors other than alcohol.  The subject may be nervous, cold, hard of hearing, etc.  Medical issues also can skew the results of your blood or breath test.

Even if you feel that you may be guilty there is a chance that you are not legally guilty of DUI.  If you were arrested for DUI, you should contact a DUI attorney as soon as possible to discuss your legal options.