Recent Blog Posts

Beating a DUI with a Refusal Allegation.

Gold & Witham — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:37:00 GMT

The law in California requires that a person lawfully arrested for a DUI submits to a chemical test to determine their breath or blood alcohol level. A refusal to submit to a test may result in a forced blood test or greater penlaties in court and a long license suspension from the DMV.

However, the other way to look at this is that it can be more difficult for a prosecutor to prosecute a DUI allegation without a blood or breath test. The arresting officers opinion about the sobriety of the defendant is essentially the only evidence without a chemical test result. The refusal may be seen as evidence of guilt, but a jury cannot convict a person based on the refusal allegation alone and there is often a reasonable explanation for the refusal independant of consciousness of guilt.

During the course of the last year, I have been retained for three refusal cases in West Covina Court in Los Angeles County. All three cases were rejected by the District Attorneys Office for lack of evidence. This demonstrates an understanding by the Deputy in Charge of the Court that if the evidence of impairment is weak, a DUI case should not be prosecuted.

If you have any questions concerning DUI defense, please contact Los Angeles and Orange County DUI lawyers Gold and Witham for a free consultation.

County Jail for Felony DUI

Gold & Witham — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:48:00 GMT

I was stunned yesterday when I received a call from a client who had just been released from a six month county jail sentence. The reason for my surprise was that she had surrendered for her sentence the previous day.

The six month jail sentence was as a result of a negotiated disposition in Los Angeles Superior Court, CCB, for a felony DUI. The client had no prior convictions and came from a middle class, law abiding family. The case was made a felony because of an accident resulting in physical injury to a third party. The injury resulted in surgery and the removal of over a foot of lower intestines from the victim. The DA had filed a great bodily injury enhancement and had fought strenuously for at least 18 months of state prison time.

I was aware of the overcrowding problem in Los Angeles County Jail and I had been reliably informed that my client was probably going to be released after serving ten percent of her jail time. I was both very surprised and very happy that she was released after just one night in jail.

No conclusions can be drawn from this account as anyone serving jail time is entirely at the mercy of the Sherriffs department in terms of early release. Nobody can expect to be released so quickly. If State Prison time had been ordered per the insistence of the DA, the client would have served two thirds of this time.

Early release from Jail for Felony DUI.

Gold & Witham — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:48:00 GMT

I was stunned yesterday when I received a call from a client who had just been released from a six month county jail sentence. The reason for my surprise was that she had surrendered for her sentence the previous day.

The six month jail sentence was as a result of a negotiated disposition in Los Angeles Superior Court, CCB, for a felony DUI. The client had no prior convictions and came from a middle class, law abiding family. The case was made a felony because of an accident resulting in physical injury to a third party. The injury resulted in surgery and the removal of over a foot of lower intestines from the victim. The DA had filed a great bodily injury enhancement and had fought strenuously for at least 18 months of state prison time.

As an experienced felony dui lawyer in Los Angeles, I was aware of the overcrowding problem in Los Angeles County Jail and I had believed that my client was probably going to be released after serving ten percent of her jail time. I was both very surprised and very happy that she was released after just one night in jail.

No conclusions can be drawn from this account as anyone serving jail time is entirely at the mercy of the Sherriffs department in terms of early release. Nobody can expect to be released so quickly. If State Prison time had been ordered per the insistence of the DA, the client would have served two thirds of this time.

DUI versus Criminal Defense Lawyers

Gold & Witham — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:08:00 GMT

Most people arrested for a DUI do not know a DUI defense lawyer and therefore have to find one. Some people consult with their "family attorney" who then refers them to a specialist DUI lawyer. Others will respond to mail solicitations recieved from law firms following the arrest. Most people will do some research on the internet and find an attorney by reviewing their website. In any event, choosing an attorney can be a confusing experience as lawyers have different approaches and charge different fees.

Although there are many excellent criminal defense lawyers, defending DUI charges in California is a specialized area of law requiring a knowledge of science as well as law. It is advisable to hire a lawyer who focusses his or her practice on the defense of DUI charges, as opposed to general criminal defense.

The most common complaint about attorneys is that they do not return calls or keep clients advised on the status of their case. I get calls frequently from people who have already hired a lawyer, and the complaint is invariably that they do not know what is going on with their case. It tends to be the cheaper lawyers charging less than $2000 that do not have the motivation or the time to answer clients calls.

Los Angeles DUI defense attorneys Nigel Witham and Jeffrey Gold provide a high quality personalized service intended to reduce anxiety and maximize results. Please call them at 562 938 7771 for a free case evaluation.

Winning the DMV Hearing

Gold & Witham — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:07:00 GMT

Avoiding a license suspension following an arrest for DUI is often the main priority for a client. Winning the DMV hearing is also the most difficult aspect of defending a drunk driving case. I always tell prospective clients that the odds of winning a DMV hearing are significantly against them, and only by retaining an experienced DUI defense attorney do they have any chance at all of prevailing.

The DMV cannot take into account a licensee's need to drive or personal circumstances at a DMV hearing, so the plea "how am I supposed to get to work and take my kids to school?" is met with deaf ears at a DMV hearing. The only way to prevail is to find a legal or technical problem with the evidence in the case. This does not mean that it is necessary to convince the hearing officer that the licensee is not guilty of DUI, as DMV hearings can be won even with high blood alcohol levels and strong evidence of guilt. Winning issues can be as simple as a paperwork problem or the arresting officer failing to sign his sworn statement.

Sometimes the arresting officer can be your best friend at the hearing. I recently won a DMV hearing where the officer testified inconsistently about the circumstances of an alleged refusal to submit to a blood test. The officer clearly could not remember the facts, and repeatedly contradicted herself on cross-examination. This was a case where I had told the client from the beginning to expect a one year suspension, so the set aside was a pleasant surprise.

Most hearings however, result in a suspension and it then becomes a question of taking the steps necessary to re-instate driving privileges as quickly as possible. This normally involves enrollment in an alcohol education program and the filing of an SR22 proof of insurance with the DMV.

Restricted License on Second Offense DUI

Gold & Witham — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:05:00 GMT

The California Legislature has passed a law that would appear to make defendants convicted of a second DUI eligible for a restricted license earlier. The new law comes into effect on July 1, 2010.

Under the current law, a defendant convicted of a second DUI offense within ten years is suspended by the DMV for two years. However, the DMV will allow restricted license privileges after one year subject to conditions. The conditions are that the licensee is enrolled in an 18 month alcohol education program, files proof of insurance on an SR22 form, installs in his or her vehicle an ignition interlock device and pays a re-instatement fee to the DMV.

Under the new law, the defendant would be eligible for a restricted license after completing 90 days of the two year suspension, subject to the same conditions as above.

However, the new law would only help defendants to re-instate their driving privileges early if they win the seperate DMV APS hearing. If the DMV hearing is lost, the local Driver Safety Office will suspend for a full year, seperate to the consequences stemming from the court conviction.

A restricted license allows driving to and from work and for the purposes of work.

In Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the loss of driving privileges for a year or more can lead to loss of employment and serious finacial consequences. Few people can afford a private driver or taxi fares each day, and public transport is often inadequate. However, the only way to avoid a suspension on a second offense is to win the DMV hearing and avoid a DUI conviction in Court.

If you are facing a prosecution for DUI and you have a prior DUI or Wet Reckless conciction within the past ten years, please call Los Angeles and Orange County DUI Defense Lawyers, Gold and Witham for a free consultation.

Dismissal of charges in Long Beach.

Gold & Witham — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:32:00 GMT

I have been representing a client arrested by the Long Beach police department back on January 17th 2009. On that day, my client lost control of his vehicle and collided with a parked car causing substantial damage. The police report indicated that he appeared confused and sluggish and it was reported that he failed to perform field sobriety tests as instucted. The arresting officer suspected that my client was under the influence of drugs as he could not detect any odor of alcohol on his breath. My client admitted to taking a number of anti-anxiety and anti-depression medications. He agreed to submit to a blood test.

Despite taking the above medications, the blood sample tested positive for marijuana only. The Prosecutor initially offered a "wet reckless" but eventually, the Long Beach City Prosecutors office accepted that they were unable to prove the case based on what was a relatively low quantity of marijuana and the case was dismissed this week in the interests of justice.

If you have any questions concerning DUI defense in Long Beach, please call Nigel Witham or Jeffrey Gold, DUI defense lawyers with many years of experience in defending DUI charges in Long Beach Court and in other Courts in Southern California.

Ignition Interlock Device for first time DUI Offenders in Los Angeles.

Gold & Witham — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:17:00 GMT

As a result of Assembly Bill 91, defendants convicted of DUI in Los Angeles County will be required to show proof of installation in their vehicle of an ignition interlock device. This Bill becomes effective July 1st, 2010. For first offenders, the period required for installation of the device will be five months. The period of installation will be longer for repeat offenders. Installation of the device will be a mandatory requirement before the DMV will grant restricted license privileges. The Bill creates a pilot program for certain counties including Los Angeles County.

The law requires the device to be installed in every vehicle owned or operated by any defendant convicted of a DUI. The device requires that a person blow into a tube before starting their vehicle. If alcohol is registered on that persons breath, the device will not allow the vehicle to start. The device must be calibrated by a certified provider every sixty days. Missing these appointments can result in an extended license suspension.

Previously, State law allowed courts to require installation of an IID as a discretionary term of probation for offenders with high blood alcohol levels, but this was not typically ordered by the courts. In addition, the DMV may require the installation of an IID as a condition of granting a restricted license for multiple offenders after a one year period of suspension.

If you have any questions about ignition interlock devices or penalties for DUI in Los Angeles, please call Los Angeles DUI Defense Attorneys Nigel Witham and Jeffrey Gold.

Definition of "Vehicle" in DUI Cases

Gold & Witham — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:14:00 GMT

California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) and (b) make it a criminal offense to drive a "vehicle" while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or with a blood or breath alcohol level of .08% or more. This begs the question; what is a "vehicle"?

In the majority of DUI cases, this is not an issue as the defendant is stopped driving a car, truck or motorbike, all clearly "vehicles" within the definition. But what if the defendant is driving a motorized scooter, a fork lift truck or even a motorized skateboard? The Vehicle Code defines the term in section 670 as "a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks".

The courts have held that a scooter which has a small motor but which also can be propelled by pedalling, is a vehicle within the definition. However, a bicycle is not. However, Vehicle Code Section 21200.5 makes it an offense to ride a bicycle on a highway while under the incluence of alcohol or drugs. This is not a "DUI" however and carries a penalty of a fine only. As far as we are aware, the courts have not addressed the question of whether a "Segway" amounts to a vehicle for DUI purposes. Defending DUI charges in Los Angeles often involves addressing issues that higher courts have yet to give guidance over.

If you have any questions about the definition of DUI in California, please call Los Angeles DUI Attorneys Gold and Witham for a free consultation.

Sobriety Checkpoints and DUI Defense

Gold & Witham — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:39:00 GMT

The probability of being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in California is going to increase in 2010. According to The Office of Traffic Safety, eight million dollars has been allocated for law enforcement activities that deter driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs in California. This is an increase of three million dollars from 2009. The money will be used to fund the operation of sobriety checkpoints throughout California in the coming year. It is projected that there will be 2,500 checkpoints throughout the State in 2010. The OTS says that California conducts more sobriety checkpoints than any other State and declared 2010 to be "The Year of the Checkpoint".

If you have been arrested for a DUI following a stop at a sobriety checkpoint, it is important to understand that not all sobriety checkpoints are "legal" in that not all checkpoints follow constitutional guidelines. The law requires that the agency operating the checkpoint follows a number of safeguards to protect individual liberties. The safeguards relate to the choice of location, advance publicity, lighting and warning signs, length of detention, formula to be followed in determining which cars to stop, and limits on the discretion of field officers.

If you have any questions about DUI defense in Los Angeles or Orange Counties, please contact Gold and Witham Attorneys at Law for a free case evaluation.

Holiday DUI Arrests

Gold & Witham — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:37:00 GMT

According to media reports, holiday DUI arrests in Los Angeles County were up this year from the same period last year despite the fact that courts are increasingly handing out tougher sentences for DUI convictions.

More than 1,000 people were arrested for DUI in LA County during a week long campaign ending on Christmas Day, compared to 969 during the same period last year.

More anti-DUI efforts are likely over the New Year period which tends to be the busiest period for DUI law enforcement.

Many people arrested for DUI are surprised that they are over the limit when tested. It is common for people to misjudge their level of impairment and drive because they do not feel impaired. Many clients ask me what is a "safe" rate of alcohol consumption. The only way to be sure that you are not DUI is to refrain from drinking any alcohol and driving. It is simply not worth the risk. I once represented a client who was a lawyer. She had two glasses of wine and did not feel that this was in any way a problem for her in terms of her ability to drive safely. On her way home, she rear-ended a car driven by an elderly gentleman who suffered head injuries and nearly died. She had a blood alcohol level of .08%. She faced a felony prosecution, prison time and an end to her career as a lawyer. We were eventually able to negotiate a reduction to a misdemeanor DUI, thereby saving her career and avoiding state prison time, but this was a life changing experience for her and the victim. As a DUI lawyer in Los Angeles I want to achieve the best possible outcome for my client, but at the same time, I recognize the gravity of this offense and its potential impact on peoples lives.

With the above in mind, we at Gold and Witham wish our clients and readers of this blog a safe and arrest free New Year.

Diabetes and DUI Defense

Gold & Witham — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:45:00 GMT

Breath and blood alcohol analysis in DUI proceedings is based on various assumptions including an assumption that the defendant is an average person with an average physiology. Likewise, when a police officer is assessing a persons sobriety in the field prior to arrest, the police officer is comparing that persons objective symptoms of potential impairment to a "normal", healthy, average person.

However, DUI suspects sometimes suffer from physical or mental issues that may explain observed symptoms independant of alcohol consumption. One example is the effects of hypoglycemia. Typical symptoms of a diabetic attack can include dizziness, confusion, slurred speech and a loss of coordination. These symptoms can easily be attributed to alcohol impairment by a police officer who is focussed on a DUI arrest.

Even a healthy person who has not eaten for at least twenty four hours may exhibit these symptoms because of low blood sugar levels.

It is important for any DUI defense attorney to question a client about his or her health. The defendant may suffer from medical conditions which he or she does not necessarily know could be relevant to their case. Common medical conditions may have an impact on the defense of the case, such as asthma, acid reflux, old physical injuries, or dental issues.

DUI defense often involves the presentation of possible alternative explanations for the evidence presented by the prosecution. Circumstantial evidence such as slurred speech, red and watery eyes or unsteady gait can often be explained by reference to existing medical or physical attributes.

Los Angeles DUI Lawyers Jeffrey Gold and Nigel Witham have many years of experience in defending DUI charges in Southern California Courts. If you have any questions about DUI defense in California, please call for a free consultation.

Tough DUI Penalties in Harbor Justice Center

Gold & Witham — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:15:00 GMT

Defending DUI charges is difficult at the best of times, but can be very frustrating when options narrow and you are dealing with a District Attorneys Office in Orange County that is very inflexible and Judges who simply support DA policy.

I was in Harbor Justice Center yesterday for a client charged with a second DUI, while still in her first year of probation to Harbor Court on her first DUI. Penalties for a second time DUI in Orange County vary from 96 hours minimum county jail to one year maximum. Penalties for a probation violation on the first DUI vary from no jail time to six months in county jail. The maximum exposure was therefore one and a half years county jail. I had already conferenced the case with the arraignment court judge, Judge Biggs who had offered 90 days in county jail or 30 days jail plus a six month out patient treatment program. We had rejected that offer and entered a plea of not guilty. Yesterday, we were scheduled for pre-trial with Judge Robison. The judge was not receptive to argument and it became clear to me that I was not going to be able to persuade him to allow my client to perform alternatives to jail. He made it clear that he regarded SCRAM as a waste of time, and refused to give my client credit for the multiple AA meetings attended. He did offer to allow my client to perform her jail in Huntington Beach jail instead of county jail, but my client had run out of money and could not afford "private" jail.

The other option presented to my client was to request "DUI Court", whereby she would commit to a full year of out patient counseling and weekly attendance at court in return for the 96 hours minimum jail to be performed as home arrest. However, my clients work schedule was not flexible enough to accomodate the weekly meetings.

I feel that I make a difference to the outcome of the majority of cases and most of my clients are happy with my efforts at the end of the day. However, there are limits to what we can achieve sometimes in the harsh reality of defending DUI charges in Orange County.

Point of Arrest Breath Tests in Orange County

Gold & Witham — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:08:00 GMT

DUI defense attorneys in Los Angeles County generally advise their clients that they may legally refuse to submit to a pre-arrest breath test or preliminary alcohol screening device. This is generally good advice as the hand held breath machine is regarded as another field sobriety test rather than a chemical test to accurately determine a breath alcohol level. It is intended to assist the arresting officer in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a DUI arrest. Infact, the police should advise a suspect that the test is a voluntary field sobriety test.

However, in Orange County, police agencies use the hand held breath machine both as a preliminary alcohol screening device and as a chemical test after an arrest. Although a suspect is entitled to refuse a breath test prior to arrest, after an arrest, the arrestee is required by law to submit to either a breath test or a blood test. If the arrestee in Orange county chooses a breath test, he or she may be required to immediately blow into the hand held breath machine at the scene of arrest.

The police must follow the normal breath testing protocols with the hand held breath machine as with the desktop machines used at police stations. This includes regular calibration, proper police training, the taking of duplicate samples with readings within .02 of each other and a continuous observation period of at least fifteen minutes immediately before the breath test.

If you have any questions concerning DUI procedures and defending a DUI in Orange County, please call Orange County DUI Lawyers Gold and Witham for a free consultation.

Beverly Hills DUI

Gold & Witham — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:38:00 GMT

I was in Beverly Hills Court last week for a client charged with a first time DUI with borderline evidence and a breath alcohol level of .09%. my client did not want to go to trial and just wanted to resolve the case in the best manner possible. I felt that the evidence justified a reduction down to a "dry" reckless or non alcohol related reckless driving, or an "exhibition of speed". However, following three pre-trials, it became apparent to me that the best possible result would be a "wet reckless" or alcohol related reckless driving. This was an offer that the young deputy district attorney gave me reluctantly and after a lot of difficult negotiating. The original position taken by the prosecutor was that he only offered reductions if the breath alcohol level was below .08%.

After taking the plea, the judge decided to lecture my client at length about the dangers of drinking and driving and how everyone with a BAC of .08% is impaired to drive. The judge went so far as to solicit a"promise" from my client to never drink any alcohol and drive again. The judge asked my client whether there was anyone in his life that cared about him (his mother was in court at the time) and asked how they would feel if he or another person was killed as a result of his drunk driving.

It is apparent from the above that DUI's are treated seriously by the Courts even when the evidence is borderline and charges are being reduced. Politics plays a big part in this ofcourse as judges and prosecutors tend to be judged on how they deal with DUI cases. Uppermost in their mind is what would happen to them if, having given a defendant a break, he goes out and kills someone while impaired. This is a judges worst nightmare.

I am often asked the question "Do I need an attorney?" It follows from the above, that even in "minor" DUI cases, it is always wise to seek representation from a qualified Los Angeles DUI lawyer.