Normally, the Court and DMV proceedings in DUI cases are entirely seperate and the results of the DMV and the Court case do not impact each other. However, there is one very important exception to this; if a defendant is found not guilty to driving with a breath or blood alcohol level over .08% (Section 23152(b) of the Vehicle Code), the DMV suspension proceedings should be set aside. A not guilty verdict can be entered by the judge following a review of the evidence, but is more typically arrived at after a jury trial. In either case, it is necessary to submit a certified copy of the verdict to the DMV in Sacramento to secure a set aside of any suspension.

It is important to note that a dismissal of DUI charges by way of a negotiated plea bargain does not impact a DMV suspension. Likewise, a not guilty verdict in court in a refusal case, does not operate to set aside the DMV suspension based on a refusal.

If you are interested in further information about this, please contact experienced Los Angeles and Orange County DMV Lawyers, Gold and Witham at 562 938 7771.

Following a lawful arrest for DUI, a licensee is under an obligation to submit to a chemical test. The licensee has the choice of blood or breath. Urine is no longer a choice unless the DUI is based on drugs. If a person refuses to submit to a test, the DMV may suspend that persons privilege to drive for one year (or two years if there are prior convictions or DUI suspensions within ten years).

However, a refusal is not properly found where evidence establishes that the licensee suffered a head injury that made him incapable of refusing. The case on point is Hughey v. DMV (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 752. The licensee in this case suffered a fractured skull as a result of an accident that led to the DUI arrest. He displayed belligerent behaviour at the scene which a neorologist testified to as being consistent with his physical injury such that he was deemed incapable of refusing.

If you are facing a DMV hearing based on a chemical test refusal and you believe that, as a result of a medical condition you were incapable of refusing, please contact Los Angeles and Orange County DMV lawyers Gold and Witham for a free consultation. Time is of the essence in defending the DMV case as a DMV hearing must be requested within ten days of the DUI arrest. 

Drug diversion is available to defendants who have been charged with drug possession when it can be shown that they have no prior drug possession convictions, no prior convictions for violence, no prior drug diversion within five years and no evidence of other non qualifying drug charges committed at the same time as the present offense.

Drug diversion allows the defendant to complete an educational program to have the charges dismissed, normally after eighteen months, so long as no further offenses are committed.

Drug diversion is not available for DUI charges. In addition, many prosecutors oppose drug diversion for minor possession charges where a DUI is charged at the same time, because a DUI is a non qualifying drug charge. However, this should not be a problem where the DUI is based on alcohol only, and there is no evidence of driving under the influence of drugs.

As a matter of public policy, I do not understand the logic of denying diversion for first time DUI offenders so long as there is no aggravating factor such as an accident with personal injuries. Alcohol is no different from other drugs in terms of the need for treatment and education for those who may have a problem. Diversion gives an incentive to first offenders to overcome the problem in order to earn a dismissal. This would divert a number of people from the criminal justice system who probably shouldn't be treated as criminals. Ofcourse, if any politician advocated this, it would be political suicide, so don't hold your breath. On the contrary, all politicians advocate stiffer penalties for DUI charges, not more lenient ones.

If you have been arrested for DUI and the police have also found drugs in your possession, please contact  Los Angeles and Orange County DUI defense lawyers, Gold and Witham for a free case evaluation.

It is always a pleasure to beat the odds in a hostile environment. The young deputy district attorneys prosecuting DUI charges in North Justice Center, Fullerton, Orange County are given little discretion to treat cases individually and fairly. The standard position is to treat everyone punitively including handing out jail time like candy. Prosecutors tend to be dismissive and unwilling to listen to defense counsel. Any experienced DUI lawyer in Orange County will have his or her own story to tell about how the prosecutors in Fullerton are unwilling to listen to mitigation or defenses in DUI cases.

In this context it was with great pleasure that a jury in Fullerton took just one and a half hours to deliberate before finding my client not guilty of DUI yesterday. This was a tough case as my client had been involved in an accident, had refused all tests and the Fullerton police had taken a blood sample from him without consent. The result of the blood test was .10%.

Although most defendants would prefer to negotiate a settlement than go to trial, sometimes it is necessary when a prosecutor refuses to be fair and listen to argument. If you feel that you have been unfairly charged with DUI and you wish to consider taking your case to jury trial, please call experienced DUI trial attorney, Nigel Witham of Gold and Witham Attorneys at Law for a free consultation.

DUI defense attorneys in Los Angeles will disagree on the question of whether it is a good idea to call the defendant as a witness at trial. Most DUI trial lawyers will have horror stories of how they lost cases because of the defendants poor testimony and most criminal defense attorneys take the view that the defendant should only testify if absolutely necessary.

The starting point is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant does not have to testify and the jury is instructed not to hold this against him. Exposing the defendant to cross examination can be very damaging.

However, in my experience, Jurors expect innocent clients to tell their story and believe that they are hiding something if they don't.

This is a very difficult judgement call. Some defendants insist on testifying and have the right to reject counsels advice on this point. Some drunk driving defenses require testimony from the defendant, such as medical defenses or where the clients testimony is the only source of information upon which to found a defense. For example, somebody else drove or the defendant claims he drank after driving. Sometimes, the defendants testimony can evoke sympathy from a jury.

Each drunk driving case should be evaluated on its own merits and decisions should be made with the defendant's full understanding and cooperation.

In the State of California it is a defense to the possession of marijuana to have a valid doctor's recommendation for the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Compassionate Use Act allows physicians to recommend the use of marijuana for certain specified medical conditions including "chronic pain". For those in possession of a vailid physician's recommendation, possession of up to eight ounces of dried marijuana is legal.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles and Orange County Courts often question the validity of doctor's recommendations and refuse to dismiss charges unless the defendant performs some penalties to earn a dismissal. This approach is not justified and Prosecutors and Judges sometimes need to be educated about the law and that they should not second guess the opinion of a doctor. In fact, in addition to dismissing possession charges, the court should also, upon motion, return the marijuana to the defendant. It is afterall, the patients medicine.

However, the above does not provide a defense to DUI charges in California. It is still possible to be prosecuted for DUI based on marijuana, despite the existence of a valid prescription. The issue then becomes whether the defendant was impaired to drive. There is little medical evidence to support a DUI prosecution based on marijuana alone and many prosecutors will agree to dismiss this charge as well.

It is common for the police to base probable cause for a DUI stop on speeding, but occasionally, the police stop people for driving too slowly in order to see if they have been drinking. The CHP manual suggests that slow driving can be consistent with drunk driving as alcohol can slow reactions.

However, it should be argued that slow driving is not necessarily consistent with impaired driving and is not necessarily a traffic infraction unless the driver is impeding other traffic or otherwise causing a hazard to traffic. Each case should be looked at on its own facts. For example, driving within the lane at 30mph in a 40mph zone may be considered prudent driving. Driving at 20mph in a 40mph zone and impeding traffc would be the basis for a legitimate traffic stop. California Vehicle Code Section 22400(a) says that no person shall drive on a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, unless the speed is necessary for safe operation.

The proper way to challenge this evidence would be to file a 1538.5 motion attacking probable cause. If the initial traffic stop is ruled unlawful, the subsequest evidence of impairment including the results of any blood or breath test are suppressed and the case would normally be dismissed. Defending drunk driving charges on this basis requires the experience of a good DUI lawyer. 

If you have any questions about this or any other DUI related issue, call Los Angeles DUI Defense Lawyers Gold and Witham for a free consultation at 562 938 7771.

I was watching Celebrity Apprentice last night and was not surprised when Donald Trump fired a contestant, not because she performed poorly on the task, but because he found out that she had been arrested for drunk driving.

Many people arrested for a DUI are less concerned with court penalties and DMV suspensions than with the prospects of losing their job if they are convicted of a DUI. Doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, teachers and anyone who drives for a living come within this category.

Convincing evidence that a persons career is at stake, when presented effectively, can be a reason for a prosecutor to consider dismissing DUI charges. However, if this is not possible a more aggressive approach is often necessary and the case ultimately must be decided by a jury at trial. At Gold and Witham, we see jury trial as a last resort, because of the risks and cost involved. However, when a persons job is at stake, everything must be done to win the case at all costs.

There is a great deal of prejudice in the community against people arrested for DUI. We have Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other similar organisations to thank for that. However, although I appreciate it when people accept responsibility for their actions, sometimes it's necessary to defend yourself at all costs.

Upon conviction for a DUI in California, the court will place a defendant on probation for a period of three to five years. Probation can be formal or informal. Formal probation requires supervision by a probation officer, informal probation does not. It is unusual for a defendant to be placed on formal probation for a misdemeanor DUI, but some courts including Ventura and Pomona have a reputation for requiring formal supervision by a probation officer even on a first time DUI. It is typical for formal probation to be imposed for a felony DUI in Los Angeles or Orange County.

The standard conditions of probation in a DUI case include a requirement to violate no law. The commission of any new criminal offense during the probationary period will result in probation violation proceedings. This happens frequently when people take a chance and drive on a suspended license following a DUI conviction.

In addition, it is typical for the court to require, as a condition of probation, that the defendant refrain from driving with any measurable amount of alcohol in his or her breath or blood. Even driving after drinking one alcoholic drink is a violation of probation. It is also a condition of probation to submit to any field sobriety tests, breath or blood test in the event that a police officer requests it. Normally, field sobriety tests, including preliminary alcohol screening devices are voluntary. This is not the case for defendants on probation.

Conditions of probation can also include a prohibition on drinking alcohol at all, and a prohibition on attending bars. Some judges in Long Beach impose this condition in all DUI cases.

Standard conditions also include no driving without a valid license and insurance.

It is also a condition of probation to complete all terms of the sentence, including any jail time or community labor, pay any fine and complete any alcohol education program ordered by the court.

If you have been arrested for a DUI in Los Angeles or Orange County, please contact the leading DUI law firm of Gold and Witham to discuss your options.

California courts have upheld the existence of the offense of attempted drunk driving. Attempted drunk driving is relevant in circumstances where the defendant is observed behind the wheel of a vehicle, but no actual movement of the vehicle is witnessed. In these circumstances, prosecutors regularly file DUI charges in Orange County and Los Angeles, on the assumption that they can prove driving by circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant's vehicle registration, keys in possession, absence of any passengers who may have driven, engine running etc. After all, the vehicle got to the location somehow.

It should be noted that if the defendant claims that no actual driving occured or the consumption of alcohol was in the vehicle after arrival at the location of the parked vehicle, this is a defense to DUI and the case should be tried before a jury if the prosecutor is unwilling to dismiss the case. However, in circumstances where the defendant drove to the location after consuming alcohol and was seen by the police or a witness stationary in his vehicle, a plea to attempted drunk driving may be considered in order to avoid the mandatory penalties associated with DUI including jail time, license suspensions and alcohol programs. In addition, a conviction would not be a prior DUI in the event of any future prosecutions.