It was reported yesterday that Orange County officials have approved a budget that slashed $1.2 billion from the county budget for the fiscal year beginning in July. The Orange County District Attorney's budget was cut by $8 million leading to likely job losses. The Sheriffs Department's budget was cut by $28 million leading to likely problems for criminal investigations and county jail administration.

It is becoming increasingly common for the Orange County District Attorneys Office to delay the filing of criminal complaints beyond the day scheduled for the arraignment. Sometimes it can be months before a criminal complaint is filed leading to additional confusion and stress for defendants who want to put the case behind them and move on. This is often the case with DUI charges in Orange County as the District Attorneys office often has to wait for the results of blood testing.

With the budget cuts for next year, the problem with late filings is likely to get worse.

If you have any questions about defending criminal charges in Orange County, please call Orange County DUI lawyers Gold and Witham at 562 938 7771.

It happened again!

You sat in the courtroom hallway, the day you finally settled your first DUI case, telling your attorney, "I'll never damn do this again, as long as I live!"  And then it happened again!

That's because your first attorney didn't actually care about your future, but only in showing that the cop in your first arrest was a "fascist or a fool," the machines were "broken," and the System was"out to get you."  No talk of politics, no thought of rehabilitation. "Throw a molotov cocktail at those prosecutors" -- that'll get them to give away the store, for sure!

Bunk.

Macho theatrics aside, on a second conviction for DUI, you're facing up to one year in jail, an 18 month, arduous alchohol education program, up to a $4000 court fine and a two year loss of your driver's licence.  And if you want to do better, stern motivation trumps blathering intimidation as a way to garner generous discretion from judges and prosecutors throughout California's Courts.  Not threats.  Not bombast.  Evidence. Of reasonable, reliable, technical defenses ("he didn't see me drive" and "he didn't read me my Rights!" are TV fantasies, not legal defects) and of your inherent good character (actual documentation of your devotion to avoid this offense a third time -- whether you actually commited this second offense, or not). Gold and Witham, Attorneys at Law, make dynamic just this kind of enthusiastic, pragmatic approach to defending the multiple DUI case in Los angeles and Orange County.  We promote the good will of California Prosecutors, because we used to be, or work for, California Prosecutors and the DMV.  If you want to handle those dangerous, repeat DUI penalties by going to the back of the bus and having your attorney wake you with your "settlement," please don't call us. But, If you want to minimize punishment, promote the prospect of dismissals, and assure yourself you're finally "done with all this," please contact Gold and Witham, drunk driving defense attorneys, as soon as possible.  

If you've been arrested for drunk driving or dui in California, you will soon discover the State has "two bites of your apple":  a court action threatening you with jail time and a DMV DUI administrative action threatening the loss of your privilege to drive in California (and potentially, nationally).  And a conviction in the court system is not considered "Double Jeapardy," preventing that additional administrative hearing from going forward against you.  And to add injury to insult, in most instances, a win at the DMV does not stop the Court from prosecuting you, nor does a dismissal of your DUI at the Court dismiss the DMV's administrative action.  Although prosecutors are college and law school -educated in law and science, most DMV hearing officers are without this graduate, legal or professional background, and yet are making life-changing decisions about technically demanding issues for people who need to drive!

Driving in California is considered a "privilege," not a constitutional right. The DMV's "Implied Consent" law imposes a duty to drive without physical impairment or an obtained blood alcohol level of .08% or above, or you risk the loss of your privilege.  You have no right to refuse to provide this evidence (blood, breath or urine samples), or demand the assistance of lawyers, family or friends before you choose to comply.  Refusal threatens you with the loss of your licence for a least a year, and the prospect of jail time and additional punishments at court.

Don't run this mine field without a map!  Only an DUI Lawyer trained in DMV Hearing Defense should be trusted with the special defenses that distinguish the DMV's action against you from the Court's.  It's just that important!

On a first conviction for DUI in California, the mandatory actions department of the DMV in Sacramento will impose a six month license suspension for the conviction. This is dated from the date of the plea/conviction in court. The suspension can be converted to a restriction upon filing proof of insurance (SR22) and proof of enrollment in a first offender alcohol program.

However, by the time of the court conviction, most people will have already suffered a suspension as a result of the seperate administrative proceedings with the local driver safety office. This is a four month suspension that can be converted to a thirty day suspension followed by a five month period of restriction, by filing the SR22 and proof of enrollment in the alcohol program as above.

There are therefore, two seperate DMV suspensions for a DUI, which start running at different times.

Vehicle Code Section 13353.3(c) states that the above suspensions should run concurrently and that the total period of suspension should not exceed the longer of the two. I have confirmed with the legal department of the DMV that licensees should get credit for any period of suspension already suffered by the time that they are suspended again as a result of the court conviction.

If you need an explanation of the above or you have any other questions relating to suspension periods in DUI cases, please call Los Angeles and Orange County DMV lawyers Gold and Witham at 562 938 7771.

DUI in California is a "political" crime, because of the involvement of that very political lobby, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  The only force between the arrested drunk driver and MADD is your Los Angeles Drunk Driving Attorney. With approximately 1,500,000 drunk driving/ dui arrests nationally, annually, MADD and its minions, the Los Angeles prosecutors, are very motivated to convict you of your first (let alone repeat) offense, and impose prospects of high monetary fines, long, state-mandated alcohol "education" programs (at your expense), community service hours -- and jail time.  Yes, these days jail time -- typically 5 to 60 days -- is a potential and pending threat after a loss at trial, even for a first offender!

Nevertheless, with a creative and energetic effort by your Los Angeles Drunk Driving Attorney to demonstrate the technical defenses in your case and your devotion to avoiding a repeat drunk driving arrest in future, it is possible to motivate a prosecutor to consider reductions and dismissals of DUI charges.  Recent cases in point:  our  Harbor Court client, a Navy Pilot with a high blood alcohol (.17%) accomplished dismissing a drunk driving charge with conviction of a lesser, non-alcohol-related "dry" reckless; our client, a young businessman with four passengers injured in his own car, earned the respect of a tough Westminster Prosecutor to have his felony DUI reduced to a simple misdemeanor, no jail or prison time; two third- offender clients, both facing significant jail time in Metropolitan and Long Beach Courts, respectively, suffered no jail time, whatsoever.  The "attitude test" is important to cops on the beat; it is equally meaningful to a prosecuting attorney: Los Angeles Drunk Driving Attorney Law Firm Gold and Witham specializes in the kind of respectful, severe legal and rehabilitatively-oriented presentation that shows your DUI case will be the last one in your history.  If the scientific and legal defenses are there, we will find them, and show the Prosecutor why you, uniquely, have earned his consideration in your DUI case. 

I have been retained by a number of defendants recently facing jail time as a result of a DUI speed enhancement. It seems that prosecutors in Los Angeles and Orange County are increasingly pressing this issue and filing borderline speed enhancements in circumstances where traditionally, it has not been an issue.

California Vehicle Code section 23582 mandates a consecutive sixty day jail sentence in addition to regular Califonia DUI penalties, if it is proven that the defendant drove more than thirty miles over the speed limit on a freeway, or twenty miles over the limit on any other roadway. Additionally, the court must find evidence of reckless driving.

This is the most punitive enhancement in the Vehicle Code. It is understood that it is very dangerous to speed while impaired, but every case should be considered on its own merits and it can be very unfair to put someone in jail for such an extended period when there was no accident and nobody was hurt. In these cases, keeping a defendant out of jail is the over-riding consideration, even if it means submitting to other penalties such as caltrans or community service.

DUI penalties are increasing all the time and jail is becoming more common for first offenders. The days of a free pass on a first time offense are gone (if ever there was such a thing). Retaining a DUI lawyer in Los Angeles or Orange County is not only necessary to try to avoid a conviction, but also to avoid some of the more punitive penalties the court can impose for this offense.

County jail in DUI cases is mandated for second or third offenses. It is also sometimes ordered as a condition of probation for first offenses with aggravating facts. An accident with personal injuries, a high speed enhancement, a refusal to provide a chemical test or a high blood alcohol level can result in county jail.

One option available to defendants faced with county jail time is to negotiate a disposition that permits jail time to be served in a "private" jail. There are a number of jails in Los Angeles and Orange County that are run independently, outside of the county jail system. These jails are run by local police departments and offer facilities that are cleaner, safer and better run than county jail.

Additionally, local jails often offer flexibility in terms of allowing work/trustee programs which allow return home at night. Some local jails will also allow a work furlough arrangement whereby a person is allowed to go to work during the day and check into jail at night. Weekend jail is also an option. These options often allow defendants to keep their job intact.

Private jails are not free. They vary in terms of what they charge, but for those who can afford it, it is worth paying.

In Los Angeles there a private jails in Glendale, Pasadena, Seal Beach, Hawthorne, Palos Verdes and Hermosa Beach. In Orange County, there are private jails in Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and Santa Ana.

Some judges and prosecutors are reluctant to allow defendants "preferential treatment", but effective plea negotiations can often result in a dispostion that avoids the stress and fear associated with a pending county jail commitment.

Many judges and prosecutors dealing with DUI cases in Los Angeles and Orange County seem to believe that a blood or breath alcohol level of .15% or higher mandates a six or even a nine month alcohol education program and that the court has no discretion to allow a three month program. In addition, I have had judges and prosecutors state on the record that even if they allowed a three month program, the DMV would mandate a nine month program as a condition of license reinstatement. None of this is true.

California Vehicle Code Section 23578, provides that courts should consider a breath or blood alcohol level of .15% or higher as a special factor which may enhance DUI penalties in California. This is a discretionary factor that does not mandate anything at all. It also has nothing to do with the DMV. A court can, if it wishes, increase the length of the alcohol program, but the court should also consider not doing this for good reason. It is entirely wrong for courts to routinely enhance penalties, without individual consideration with the mistaken belief that there is no discretion.

If the blood or breath alcohol level is over .20%, then the Vehicle Code does mandate a nine month alcohol education program and the court has no discretion on this point, unless the prosecutor agrees to strike the enhancement.

If you have any questions concerning this or any other issues relating to penalties for a DUI in California, please call Los Angeles DUI Lawyers, Gold and Witham for a free consultation.

Probation violation proceedings in DUI cases can result from an arrest for a new DUI or other criminal offense during the probationary period. Probation violation proceedings can also result from a failure to comply with court penalties, such as a failure to pay a fine on time or the non-completion of an alcohol program by the due date.

When the probationary court receives information about a new criminal law violation, or when a defendant fails to comply with the other terms of probation, the court terminates probation and either issues an arrest warrant or sends a notice to appear to the defendant mandating a court appearance.

The court has broad powers on a probation violation, from reinstating probation on the same terms and conditions without any further penalty, to imposing the maximum penalty for the original offense. For a first time DUI, the maximum penalty is six months in county jail.

Normally, if a defendant fails to pay a fine on time or fails to complete an alcohol program on time, the court will allow an extension without additional penalties, so long as the request is made promptly. However, if there are repeated violations, or the commission of a new DUI, some additional jail time is to be expected. The policies of individual courts and judges vary quite considerably in this regard.

A DUI probation violation in Orange County normally results in an additional thirty to ninety days county jail. Los Angeles County courts tend to be more lenient.

A defendant charged with a probation violation has the right to be represented by an attorney and has the right to a probation violation hearing before a judge (not before a jury). However, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

One of the potential consequences of a DUI conviction is a license suspension. Here in Los Angeles, this can be the most difficult consequence to deal with. The main priority for many of my clients is the preservation of driving privileges.

For some, a license suspension does not prevent them from driving. Ofcourse, public transport is inefficient in Los Angeles and people need to drive for work. For those taking a chance, the obvious question is; So what if I get caught?

The police will impound a persons vehicle for thirty days following a driving on a suspended license arrest.

California Vehicle Code Section 14601.2 punishes driving on a suspended or revoked license as a result of a DUI conviction. Knowledge of the suspension must be proved. The penalties include informal probation, a fine and at least ten days county jail. More jail time can be imposed for a probation violation on the original DUI charges. In addition, the court will also order the installation of an ignition interlock device in the defendants vehicle.

If you have any questions concerning the penalties for driving on a suspended license, please call Nigel Witham at 562 938 7771.

California Vehicle Code section 23152(a) makes it a criminal offense to drive under the influence of alcohol. The question then arises, what is the definition of "under the influence" in DUI cases in California?

Under the influence does not require proof of being "drunk". There is no such thing as "drunk driving". The word "drunk" implies an elevated level of intoxication greater than merely being under the influence of alcohol.

People can be impaired to drive at different blood alcohol levels depending on their tolerance for alcohol. The law presumes that a person is under the influence legally if a blood or breath test gives a reading over a .08%. This is a rebuttable presumption however, and not everyone is impaired at this level. The law also says that a person may be legally impaired to drive with a blood or breath alcohol level over .05%, depending on the evidence. Under a .05%, and a person is considered legally sober to drive.

However, in DUI refusal cases in California, there is no blood or breath test evidence, and the Prosecution must attempt to prove impairment without a chemical test reading. The driving pattern, field sobriety tests, objective symptoms and the circumstances of the refusal are then relevant.

California jury instructions indicate that a person is "under the influence" if, as a result of taking alcohol or drugs, his or her mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.

If you have any questions about this or any other issue relating to DUI defense in California, please call Gold and Witham at 562 938 7771.

California Vehicle Code section 23152(a) makes it a criminal offense to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs or the combined influence of alcohol and drugs. This standard language is found on every criminal complaint and it often causes concern to defendants who understood that they had been charged with DUI related to alcohol, but now see an allegation of a DUI related to drugs.

In situations where a plea to DUI is unavoidable, it is normally advisable to plead to the second count in the complaint which is driving with a breath or blood alcohol level of over .08% pursuant to Vehicle Code section 232152(b). The court would then dismiss count one thus avoiding the concern about the language relating to drugs. Otherwise, a motion should be made to strike the language relating to drugs from the complaint if the allegation of DUI is based on alcohol only.

Ofcourse, if the DUI allegation is based on drugs, Section 23152(a) is the only appropriate charge.

If you have been charged with a DUI based on alcohol or drugs in Los Angeles or Orange County and you have questions about defending your case, please call drunk driving defense lawyers Gold and Witham for expert advice.

Plea negotiations in DUI cases sometimes result in the Prosecutor offering to dismiss DUI charges in return for a plea to reckless driving.

Reckless driving is a violation of vehicle code section 23103. It is a misdemeanor and is a two point moving violation on the DMV record. Reckless driving can be non-alcohol related, otherwise known as a "dry reckless, or alcohol related, known as a "wet reckless'.

The main difference between a wet and a dry reckless is that a wet reckless is a prior conviction on the record for purposes of sentencing in the event that the defendant commits a second DUI within ten years. A dry reckless is not priorable.

Penalties for reckless driving vary. Typically, a dry reckless would result in 24 months of informal probation and a fine of $240 plus penalty assessments. A wet reckless also mandates an alcohol education program. There is a 12 hour program for a wet reckless, known as an SB1176 program. Some Prosecutors insist on the level one three month AB541 program which is about 33 hours in length over a three month time frame.

There is no mandatory license suspension for a reckless driving conviction.

If you have questions concerning plea bargain negotiations in DUI cases, please call DUI Defense Law Firm Gold and Witham at 562 938 7771. 

Curiously, the California Vehicle Code does not provide a definition of what constitutes driving for the purposes of proving that a person drove a vehicle while impaired or over the limit.

In the DMV case of Mercer v Dept of Motor Vehicles 53 Cal. 3d 753, 280 Cal. Rptr. 745, 809 P.2d 404 (1991) the Court held that for the purpose of license suspension hearings, the DMV must establish evidence of volitional movement of the vehicle, however slight.

Most Prosecutors accept that proof of driving requires proof of some movement of the vehicle. Even taking the hand brake off and rolling forward, with the engine switched off would constitute "driving".

Some States make it an offense to be in care and control of a vehicle while impaired, so that a person could be guilty by being in the drivers seat of a stationary vehicle. California has no such law, although it is theoretically possible to be guiltly of an attempt to drive a vehicle while impaired.

Circumstantial evidence of driving is admissable to prove driving. Prosecutors may sometimes seek to prove driving by the surrounding circumstances, such as who the vehicle is registered to, who was in the drivers seat, whether the engine was warm or running, who had the keys and who was in the car and how did it get there etc.

I recently had a DUI case in Orange County, where my client was observed urinating on the side of the freeway. He had the keys to the car which was parked on the shoulder. However, the registered owner of the car was also with him although he was in the passenger seat and alleged that my client drove. The case was never filed by the DA's office due to lack of proof of driving. At the DMV hearing in Irvine Driver Safety Office, the DMV set aside the suspension based on my argument that it was impossible to establish who drove the vehicle.