The increases in various driver’s license suspensions is a confusing subject for everybody. In California, a first time DUI conviction will require a three month DUI school. If (1) the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .20% or higher or (2) the driver refused to take a chemical test, then a nine month school is required pursuant to Vehicle Code §23538(b). There are special requirements and sanctions that apply to drivers who have a California driver’s license who get a first offense, out-of-state DUI conviction and the conviction is picked up by DMV. Vehicle Code §§15023(a), 13363, 23626, 13352(d). It is crucial to speak to a Santa Rosa DUI lawyer before making any decision regarding the defense against a license suspension.

In addition, the conviction in court requires a six month suspension of license. If (1) the BAC is at .20% or higher or (2) the driver refused a chemical test, then the suspension is increased to ten months. Vehicle Code §§13352(a)(1) and 13352.1. Both the six month and ten month suspension can be immediately converted to a restricted license that allows driving to, from and during work once (1) the payment of DMV re-issuance fees is made, (2) the driver files an SR-22 insurance form with DMV, and (3) the driver enrolls in the appropriate DUI school.

There is a separate problem with suspensions that can occur simultaneously at DMV. If the DMV’s administrative judge makes a finding that the driver has refused a chemical test, that driver will have his driver’s license suspended for a one year period of time without any ability to acquire restriction privileges. Vehicle Code §§13353 and 13353.1.

For information about California DUI laws, click here. For more information about California DMV issues, click here.

Typically, for someone to be convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code §245), a deadly weapon must be used. A deadly weapon can literally be almost anything if used with sufficient force, i.e., a bat, a steel-toed boot, a high-heeled shoe, a beer bottle, a car, a pencil, a dog, a cigarette lighter, etc. This is the type of case that is typically handled by Lake County criminal defense attorneys.

In the Second District Court of Appeals case entitled In re J.L., (2012), the defendant punched the alleged victim who then fell down onto the sidewalk. The defendant then violently stepped on the victim’s head that was lying against the sidewalk basically making the sidewalk one side of a vice with the defendant’s foot on the other side. The defendant made the argument that he had not actually “used” the sidewalk but rather the sidewalk was simply there.

This Court said that someone who is attacking another can take advantage of an object’s intrinsic qualities in a way that is likely to cause the victim great bodily harm without actually possessing or controlling the object. This can be a slippery slope for the Court. Next, similar logic will possibly lead to the characterization of walls, refrigerators or any other surface against which an alleged victim is punched or hit, to be classified as a deadly weapon. In the opinion of a Lake County criminal lawyer, this Court is taking the concept too far.

For more information about assault issues in California, click here.

The new trend is to introduce stronger DUI laws to acquire more convictions. In February 2013, State Senator Lou Correa, a Democrat from Santa Ana, California, introduced Senate Bill 289 which attempts to clarify the DUI laws involving marijuana, steroids and prescription drugs. The purpose of this legislation, according to the Senator, is to improve the ability of prosecuting district attorneys to acquire convictions in DUI cases involving drugs.

Theoretically, if a person were using a controlled substance but had a prescription for it and were using the medication as prescribed, such as oxycontin (oxycondone), they would be excluded from prosecution. This law would only apply to drivers who had a detectable amount of medication in their system but were without a prescription. In short, this new law is designed to make it illegal for anyone to drive a vehicle if their blood contains any detectable amount of a Scheduled Drug pursuant to the California Uniform Controlled Substance Act. This would be, in essence, a “zero tolerance” law. The problem lies when a person has a detectable amount of a drug in their system, but is not impaired which is currently a requirement for a DUI conviction, unless they are at a 0.08% blood alcohol concentration or higher. For additional information about DUI laws in California, click here.

Obviously, all law enforcement agencies support this legislation, as is typical in these situations, because it is job enhancing and provides job security. We should hear a great deal about this proposal in the near-term future as Santa Rosa DUI attorneys and Sonoma County drug lawyers submit their opposition to the numerous problems attendant with this type of shortsighted legislation. For more information about drug crimes in California, click here.

The United States Supreme Court ruled on February 19, 2013, in a manner which has eroded our Constitutional right to be free from search and seizure and that does not appear to be functionally justified. This is a decision that is not looked upon favorably by Eureka drug lawyers. In disagreeing with a Florida Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that when a drug police dog alerts to a location of drugs, that, in and of itself, is sufficient to establish probable cause to allow police officers to conduct a further and more intensive search. This is in direct opposition to the position taken by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The underlying body of evidence regarding drug dogs nationally is that they have a high rate of false alerts and, therefore, are unreliable. Nevertheless, the Court overruled the Florida decision and instead of choosing the higher standard set by the Florida Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court said simply that “a sniff is up to snuff” and declared that no specific evidence is required to be produced by the government to meet the issue of reliability and the police can properly rely on a dog’s “alert”. For more information about California search and seizure issues, click here.

Eureka criminal defense attorneys will consistently point out that the Supreme Court’s ruling now creates a presumption in the local courts that a dog’s behavior is reliable if the police testify accordingly. This decision effectively precludes the requirement that the prosecution produce evidence of the dog’s reliability. Now, criminal drug defense lawyers will bear the burden of proving the dog’s unreliability. This is a sad and unfortunate decision. For more information about California drug cases, click here.