DUI – Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

Adam J. Post has handled thousands of driving under the influence of alcohol cases. Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because you have been arrested for DUI, that this means that the prosecutor has already won and you should simply show up and plead guilty. Many people feel that they have been wrongly arrested, that there was not probable cause for the stop of their car or that they were not impaired by alcohol while driving. Remember that the arresting law enforcement officer is not the judge, jury and prosecutor on the case and is simply making an arrest based upon observations. You have the constitutional right to vigorously contest this arrest in a court of law and have your DUI attorney make the government prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor is unable to do this, then you cannot legally be found guilty of DUI and your case may be reduced, dismissed or result in a not guilty verdict or hung jury.

California driving under the influence cases are complicated, as each client's case presents different facts and circumstances to consider in formulating an effective defense strategy. Many factors come into play in the defense of DUI cases such as: drinking patterns, food intake and medical conditions including "gerd" or gastric reflux. Depending on the facts of each specific case, defense expert witnesses can rebut government claims of guilt when facts show that the absorption and elimination of alcohol are not consistent with impairment at time of driving. The government can also be too quick to assume that they have found the alleged driver of the car when they are in fact mistaken and cannot actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver. Title 17 of the Health and Safety Code mandates that law enforcement breath machines must be maintained and calibrated correctly with corresponding records to prove that they are functioning accurately. These are just some of the legal issues and complexities that apply to the defense of a DUI case in California.

Charges for DUI are provided for in the California Vehicle Code under California Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and (b). The (a) count makes it a crime to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, while the (b) count of section 23152 makes it a crime to drive with a blood alcohol amount of .08% or higher. The (b) count is called the "per se" count, because the prosecutor merely has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was driving with a .08% blood alcohol amount or higher in their system at the time of driving.

Driving under the influence of alcohol convictions can result in jail time, significant fines, Alcoholics Anonymous Classes, court probation with alcohol terms and the requirement of installing an ignition interlock device on your vehicle. Depending upon blood alcohol levels, the court can order a 3 month or a 9 month alcohol program. Penalties for subsequent DUI convictions included increases in jail time, license suspension terms and length of alcohol programs, as well as other court sentencing conditions. License suspensions apply in relation to DUI convictions through two separate actions. One involves a DMV license suspension based upon a court conviction for DUI (6 months for a first time DUI conviction) and the second license suspension can be due to suffering a license suspension from a DMV Administrative Per Se Suspension (4 months for a first time DMV APS suspension).

The Administrative Per Se action is a separate matter and involves a hearing with a DMV representative at a local DMV Driver Safety Office. It is critical to note that a request for a Administrative Per Se hearing must be made to the DMV within 10 days following the date of arrest. Many people wait past this 10 day requirement, losing their right to present evidence and arguments against a potential suspension at this hearing. This DMV action is a civil action and the legal standard involved in reaching a verdict to uphold or "set aside" the suspension is based upon a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. This is a different and lower standard that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in the criminal court system.